Gene Quinn on the Supreme Court’s Stanford v. Roche Decision

Big news for the technology transfer world…. earlier today, the Supreme Court issued it’s decision in Stanford v. Roche. The issue in the case was, in the context of federally funded research, the ownership of the invention first arises with the federal contractor (i.e., Stanford) or with the inventor under the Bayh-Dole Act 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-212 and whether the inventor can interfere with that right by assigning the invention to a third party.  Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor, passed along this article summarizing the opinion and what lasting consequences, if any, it will have on the patent community.

This morning the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Stanford v. Roche, a decision that has been much anticipated in the technology transfer world.  Technology transfer is the front line for the interfacing of University research and private sector commercialization, so it is no great wonder that this case captured the attention of academia and the private sector alike. At issue in the case was whether the Bayh-Dole Act automatically vested ownership of patent rights in Universities when the underlying research was federally funded.

It is not at all an exaggeration to say that Bayh-Dole is one of the most successful pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted into law. The Bayh-Dole Act, which was enacted on December 12, 1980, was revolutionary in its outside-the-box thinking, creating an entirely new way to conceptualize the innovation to marketplace cycle. It has lead to the creation of 7,000 new businesses based on the research conducted at U.S. Universities. Prior to the enactment of Bayh-Dole there was virtually no federally funded University technology licensed to the private sector, no new businesses and virtually no revolutionary University innovations making it to the public. Bayh-Dole set out to remedy this situation, and as a direct result of the passage of Bayh-Dole countless technologies have been commercialized, including many life saving cures and treatments for a variety of diseases and afflictions. In fact, the Economist in 2002 called Bayh-Dole the most inspired and successful legislation over the previous half-century. Nevertheless, the question remained, at least until this morning, whether ownership of patent rights immediately vested in the University as the result of federal funding.

Click here to read Gene Quinn’s full publication.

 

Patentees Rejoice — But Will Therasense Stand?

 

The following post comes courtesy of Brandon Baum, of Baum Legal and Practice Center Contributor.

The Federal Circuit’s split decision in Therasense is being hailed by some as the end to the “absolute plague” of inequitable conduct claims in patent cases. After all, the decision raises the bar for proving inequitable conduct. But before the champagne goes flat and the confetti is swept away, the Therasense case may prove to have been exactly the wrong horse for patentees to ride.

The problem with the majority decision in Therasense is that it is long on policy, short on the facts. In the ivory towers of the Federal Circuit (which does not have the usual diet of criminal cases, fraud cases, and other bad conduct), the fact that patent prosecutors are frequently accused of acting inequitably to obtain patents is unseemly. To the rest of the world, of course, the news that lawyers and/or inventors might try to “game the system” for financial advantage is purely “dog bites man.” (more…)

Therasense Decision “Tightens The Standards” For Proving Inequitable Conduct

Jeanne Gills, Partner at Foley & Lardner and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article she wrote with colleague Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff, discussing yesterday’s much anticipated Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. decision.

On May 25, 2011, in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Therasense, Inc. et al. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. et al, Case No. 08-1511 et al., which it heard en banc to address the law of inequitable conduct, and to consider in particular whether the materiality-intent balancing framework should be modified and, if so, how.  The court’s decision “tightens the standards” for proving inequitable conduct, holding that evidence of intent should be considered independently from materiality, and that materiality generally must be proven by a “but-for” test, except in cases of “egregious misconduct, such as the filing of an unmistakably false affidavit.”

The court issued three decisions: (1) the opinion of the court, filed by Chief Judge Rader and joined by Judges Newman, Lourie, Linn, Moore, and Reyna in full, and O’Malley in Part V; (2) an opinion by Judge O’Malley, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part; and (3) a dissenting opinion by Judge Bryson, joined by Judges Gajarsa, Dyk, and Prost. (more…)

Join Us For Prior Art & Obviousness 2011 June 6, 2011

Prior art, 35 USC 102, continues to be a complicated concept for patent practitioners and their clients, undergoing evolving interpretations in the PTO and CAFC and even statutory reform. For every practitioner, it is a necessity to stay current on this touchstone of patentability. How does the concept of “prior art” and circumstance collide in the 21st century? How does prior art on the web impact the practice? What is here today, could be gone tomorrow, but can possibly be recovered mean in terms of prior art. And, in the age of biotech and nanotech, what is truly enabled? Is it a catalog listing, or even a peer review paper? Join us for PLI’s Prior Art & Obviousness 2011 on June 6, 2011 in New York or on July 25, 2001 in San Francisco (also available via live webcast) where you will obtain an essential working understanding of this complicated statute, including recent re-interpretations, case law, and a look at enacted or proposed statutory revisions. And let’s not overlook the most common reason any application is rejected or patent held invalid: 35 USC 103, Obviousness. KSR (already 4 years old) will be explored from inside and outside the PTO as both the CAFC and PTO try to shoehorn their past decisions into a KSRpigeon hole!

Click here for more information on Prior Art & Obviousness 2011: Current Trends in Sections 102 & 103.

We will have highlights here on the Practice Center so tune in if you can’t make the program!!

The Supreme Court Argument in Microsoft v. i4i: Will the Court Lower the Burden for Proving Patent Invalidity in Infringement Litigation?

The much anticipated oral arguments in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. took place at the Supreme Court yesterday, April 18, 2011.  The question on all of our minds is whether the Supreme Court will change the burden of proof for parties alleging patent invalidity in infringement litigation from a clear and convincing standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard?   Did yesterday’s proceedings bring us one step closer to the answer?  Jeanne Gills, Partner at Foley & Lardner and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this alert she wrote with her colleagues wherein they highlight the key points from the oral argument and provide some insight as to what the outcome of this important case may be.

For nearly three decades, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has required litigants defending a claim of patent infringement to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. On April 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, No. 10-290, the first case to squarely address whether the presumption of validity codified in the 1952 Patent Act mandates a heightened burden of proof for defendants challenging validity in a patent infringement action, e.g., where the prior art was never considered by USPTO. Microsoft contends that the burden should be no greater than a preponderance of the evidence when the USPTO did not consider the most relevant prior art during patent examination. i4i is one of the most significant patent cases in years, and one of the most significant business cases of the Court’s term. Beyond reducing the burden on accused infringers to prove invalidity in patent litigation, a lowering of the standard of proof could widely impact the value of patents. (more…)