Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 153

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byRoche Molecular Systems, Inc., Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cannon, Brian) (Filed on 4/4/2007)

Download PDF
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 153 Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 153 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP Adrian M. Pruetz (Bar No. 118215) 2 ampruetz@pruetzlaw.com 1600 Rosecrans Avenue, 4th Floor 3 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 321-7640 4 Facsimile: (310) 321-7641 5 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Brian C. Cannon (Bar No. 193071) 6 briancannon@quinnemanuel.com Tun-Jen Chiang (Bar No. 235165) 7 tjchiang@quinnemanuel.co m 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 8 Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 9 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 10 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics 11 Corporation; and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. C-05-04158-MHP STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION 14 THE BOARD OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, 15 Plaint iff, 16 vs. 17 ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.; ROCHE 18 DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION; ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATION, INC., 19 Defendant. 20 21 ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.; ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION; ROCHE 22 DIAGNOSTICS OPERATION, INC., 23 24 vs. Counterclaimants, Date: April 9, 2007 Time: 2:00 PM Dept. 15, 18th Floor Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel 25 THE BOARD OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; 26 THOMAS MERIGAN AND MARK HOLODNIY, 27 28 Counterclaim Defendants. Case No. C-05-04158 MHP STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 153 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d), Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al. ("Roche"), hereby 2 submits the attached recent judicial decision, Central Admixture Pharmacy Servs. v. Advanced 3 Cardiac Solutions, P.C., No. 2006-1307 (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2007) that is relevant to Roche's 4 "Motion For Certification Of Memorandum And Order Re Cross Motions For Summary 5 Judgment Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) And Request For Stay Of Proceedings" (Docket No. 6 144). This recent judicial decision was published April 3, 2007, after Roche filed its March 30, 7 2007 reply papers in connection with its request for certification. 8 As set forth in Roche's request for certification, in the February 23, 2007 Summary 9 Judgment Order, the Court cited and relied upon TM Patents v. IBM, 121 F.Supp. 2d 349 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) and FilmTec v. Hydranautics, 982 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1992) to find: "under 11 the Bayh-Dole Act, title vests automatically in the government, not the inventor." Docket No. 12 139 at page 21. The attached recent judicial decision addresses whether the government receives 13 automatic title under the Bayh-Dole Act. Central Admixture Pharmacy Servs. v. Advanced 14 Cardiac Solutions, P.C., No. 2006-1307, slip op. at page 8 (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2007) ("tit le 15 remains with the named inventors or their assignees. Nothing in the statute, regulations or our 16 caselaw indicates that title is automatically forfeited. The government must take an affirmative 17 action to establish its title and invoke forfeiture."). 18 19 DATED: April 4, 2007 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respect fully submitted, PRUETZ LAW GROUP QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP By /s/ Brian C. Cannon Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corporation; and Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. 1 Case No. C-05-04158 MHP STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?