Fallo Decisivo - U.S. Supreme Court limits the patent rights of research universities, threw out Stanford University's suit against a Roche Holding AG

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling that limits the patent rights of research universities, threw out Stanford University's suit against a Roche Holding AG unit over methods for testing the effectiveness of AIDS treatments.

Este es lo que se llama un fallo DECISIVO de la Corte Suprema de EEUU que claramenete define el limite del poder de los contratos de empleo de Universidades sobre sus empleados.

Yo leo que dice que una institucion sin fines de lucro, que financia investigacion usando dineros publicos que gano en solicitaciones concursables, NO tiene un derecho absoluto sobre la propiedad intelectual que el profesor, investigador o estudiante genera mientras es empledo de esa institucion; y que solo tiene ese derecho si uso capital propio para pagar los costos de la investigacion que origino la patente.

Este fallo cambia la interpretacion de la Ley de Propieda Intelectual de EEUU en lo que respecta a Bayh-Dole Act sobre Universidades financiadas con dineros publicos.

Sin duda, como todo fallo que crea jurisprudencia en patentes, tendra un efecto retardado en todo el mundo en lo que respecta a los derechos de los inventores academicos que se financian con fondos concursables.

Me alegra que la US Supreme Court haya decidido en favor del Inventor y de las Empresas licensiatarias, y no de la institucion burocratica Universitaria; es un fallo bueno para la actividad economica y el empleo, a la vez que provee una motivacion economica aun mayor para que gente talentosa en la academia se enfoque en crear tecnologias y productos de interes industrial. 

Lo abogados de WilmerHale que representaron a Roche Molecular Systems contra Leland Stanford Junior University lo describen asi:

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (No. 09-1159, 6/6/11) (attached)

Roberts, C.J. Affirming dismissal due to lack of standing. Patentee lacked standing because defendant possessed an ownership interest in the patents-in-suit. “Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor. The question here is whether the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980—commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act—displaces that norm and automatically vests title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors. We hold that it does not.” The inventor, patentee’s employee, signed an agreement stating that he “‘agree[d] to assign’ to [patentee] his ‘right, title and interest in’ inventions resulting from his employment.” While remaining the patentee’s employee, the inventor subsequently conducted research at defendant’s predecessor and signed an agreement stating that he “‘will assign and do[es] hereby assign’ to [defendant’s predecessor] his ‘right, title and interest in each of the ideas, inventions and improvements’ made ‘as a consequence of [his] access’ to [defendant’s predecessor].” The patentee later applied for and obtained the patents-in-suit and asserted them against the defendant. The inventor’s initial agreement with patentee constituted a “mere promise to assign rights in the future.” The inventor’s subsequent agreement with defendant was an effective assignment of rights. Patentee argued that the inventor had no rights to assign to defendant’s predecessor because patentee’s research was federally funded and the Bayh-Dole Act therefore conferred ownership on the patentee. The Court disagreed stating that the “Bayh-Dole Act does not confer title to federally funded inventions on contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to those inventions; it simply assures contractors that they may keep title to whatever it is they already have.”

WilmerHale represented respondents, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Roche Diagnostics Corporation, and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc.