Supreme Court Rules on Scope of Federal Contractors' Rights in Federally Funded Inventions
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.07.11
On June 6, 2011, the United States Supreme Court, by a 7-2 margin, held in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. 09-1159, that the term "subject invention" in the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. § 200, et seq.), the statute that allocates certain rights in federally funded "subject invention[s]," includes only inventions for which the contractor has obtained a valid assignment from the employee inventor(s), and, therefore, that a contractor (and presumably the government) cannot obtain rights to an invention under the Bayh-Dole Act absent such an assignment. In so holding, the Court stated that the Bayh-Dole Act "simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have" – which serves as a reminder to federal contractors desiring title to their employees' inventions to obtain valid assignments.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
