The Gold Seal of Ownership: Stanford v. Roche and Ownership of Federally Funded Research
Mary Hess Eliason, an Associate of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch an Birch, sent in this article she wrote discussing the Stanford v. Roche case. Eliason highlights the issues being brought before the Supreme Court and the possible effects of this case if Stanford prevails.
When an invention is conceived, it is generally presumed to be owned by the inventor under U.S. patent law. [1] The case of Stanford v. Roche demonstrates that this may not be true in the context of federally funded research. The issue being brought before the Supreme Court is whether, 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.[2]
The facts of Stanford v. Roche show a commonly occurring relationship between inventors, research institutions and collaborators, especially in the biotechnological field. [3]In 1988, inventor Holodniy joined a laboratory at Stanford University as a research fellow. Upon joining the laboratory, Holodniy signed an agreement stating “I agree to assignor confirm in writing to Stanford . . . right, title and interest in . . . such inventions as required by Contracts or Grants”. (more…)
2 Comments
02.9.11 | bayh-dole, biotechnology patents, posts | Stefanie Levine