From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
Chou v. University of Chicago
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
254 F.3d 1347 (2001)
Facts
Joany Chou (plaintiff) was a postdoctoral research assistant for Bernard Roizman at the University of Chicago (university) (defendants). Chou alleged that she should have been named as either the sole inventor or a co-inventor on a patent that was owned by the university, through an affiliate, and on which Roizman was named as the sole inventor. The terms of Chou’s academic appointment required Chou to assign all inventions to the university. According to university policy, inventors would receive 25 percent of the gross royalties and up-front payments from the licensing of their patents and 25 percent of the stock of new companies that were based on their inventions. Chou filed suit for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 against Roizman and the university. Roizman and the university argued that Chou did not have standing to sue under § 256 because she did not have a potential ownership interest in the patent due to her obligation to assign inventions to the university. The district court dismissed the complaint, and Chou appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
