About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | More Views on Venue -- Federal Circuit Addresses In re Micron Fallout »

December 10, 2017

Comments

I hope that this is indicative of more Fed. Cir. members following Erie v. Tompkins for employment - assignment agreements than in some prior cases like Stamford's.

Mr. Morgan,

If you are thinking of Stanford v Roche, then your aim is off.

The problem there was NOT that the Court was not applying the law correctly - the problem was the poor job of contract writing by Stanford University.

Skeptical, it was both. California law was not applied to either California contract.

Mr. Morgan,

It was NOT both, as the Federal question (answered first) resolved the issue and your desire to dive into the California law was moot at that point.

This has everything to do with how Stanford positioned itself in the case (doubling down on its error of contract drafting by trying to make a Federal issue out of the matter).

Your view simply does not reach.

Skeptical, see the Jan./Feb. 2011 ABA IPL “LANDSLIDE” magazine starting on p.24. An extensive legal research article on inconsistencies and conflicts in Fed. Cir. cases with basic Sup. Ct. principles on the utilization of state law versus “federal common law”. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 583 F.3d 832, 841 (Fed. Cir. 2009) is noted.

Link?

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30