Diamond Scientific Co. v. Ambico, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
848 F.2d 1220, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2028 (1988)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Dr. Clarence Welter (defendant) founded Ambico, Inc. (defendant). Prior to forming Ambico, while Welter was employed by Diamond Scientific Co. (Diamond) (plaintiff), he invented a vaccine for pigs. Welter filed a patent application and, before the application was granted, assigned all rights in the patents to Diamond. The assignment was conducted in exchange for valuable consideration. Welter executed an oath that asserted he believed he was the first and only inventor of the vaccine, the vaccine was never previously known or used, and the vaccine had not already been patented or described in a publication in any country. Diamond was eventually given three patents related to the vaccine. Ambico started producing and selling similar pig vaccines after Diamond received the patents. Diamond filed a patent-infringement case in federal court against Ambico and Welter, asserting Ambico’s vaccines infringed on the three vaccine patents assigned by Welter to Diamond. Ambico and Welter filed an answer that included the affirmative defense of patent invalidity for each of the three patents. Diamond filed a motion to strike the three affirmative defenses, asserting the doctrine of assignor estoppel. The district court granted the motion to strike, and Ambico and Welter appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.