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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Supreme Court Preview -- Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. »

April 23, 2017

Comments

Harsh result. At least let the poor sap file an amended complaint on the inventorship question only, without a claim for monetary damages. This being the outgrowth of a university project, I'm guessing the issue boils down to credit and ego more than $$, in which case he should at least be allowed to make his case out for why he was an inventor (and therefore deserves some credit).

This appears to be a classic case a person who reads, writes and speaks standard English getting confused and abused by the legal system's bastardization of that same language.

I also wonder if, in the unlikely event Ali were to be found to entitled to be listed as an inventor, this would have actually impacted UMass' finances. As an employee of UMass, Ali presumably had already signed his rights away (but maybe not, as we learned in Stanford v. Roche). Assuming he did, in a university setting, it's not atypical for the university to keep X% and the inventors to collectively keep Y% of the royalties from patent licensing, in which case if these patents actually generated income, Ali's monetary case would be against the other co-inventors, not the university.

Hmmm...maybe I should try reading the case *before* I comment. DCDC *did* give Ali a chance to amend the complaint to assert only the inventorship issue, but Ali didn't do that. So he was (a) dumb and (b) interested in the money.

Nevertheless, it's still harsh to say "11th amendment, UMass can't be a party to suit" - even on just the inventorship claim - "and we can't proceed (even on just the inventorship claim) without UMass, so you lose". Which was Judge Dyk's point in his concurrence.

I thought that, if an invention is made with Government support (eg an NIH grant) that the U. must share royalties with the inventors. So wouldn't Ali have been entitled to some $ if he prevailed on inventorship?

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2020

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 31