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

Filing 77

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

Doc. 77

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 77

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 1 of 2

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL (No. 170085) ([e-mail]) RICARDO RODRIGUEZ (No. 173003) ([e-mail]) MICHELLE S. RHYU (No. 212922) ([e-mail]) Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY and Counterclaim Defendant THOMAS MERIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL., Defendants. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL., Counterclaimants, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; AND THOMAS MERIGAN, Counterclaim Defendants.

Case No. C 05 04158 MHP STANFORD UNIVERSITY'S STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

739715 v1/PA

1.

STANFORD'S STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 77

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 2 of 2

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

Pursuant to the Court's September 22, 2006 Order, Plaintiff Stanford University identifies the following topics on which it intends to move for summary judgment: 1. All of Roche's claims to ownership and license of the patents and patent applications identified in their counterclaims are barred by the statute of limitations, estoppel, laches, unenforceability and lack of standing. 2. There is insufficient evidence as a matter of law for Roche to meet its burden on its claim of ownership or license through the Merigan 1984 and 1991 consulting agreements, the 1989 MTA, the Holodniy Visitor's Confidentiality Agreement, or any other agreements. 3. There is insufficient evidence as a matter of law for Roche to meet its burden on its claim of ownership through the assertion of shop rights.

Dated: October 20, 2006

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP

by:

/s/ Michelle S. Rhyu

Attorneys for The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and Counterclaim Defendant Thomas Merigan

739715 v1/PA

2.

STANFORD'S STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT