E.I. Du Pont Nemours & Co. v. Okuley
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
344 F.3d 578 (2003)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
John Joseph Okuley (defendant) was employed at Washington State University (WSU) as a member of the faculty. Under the WSU faculty manual, which formed part of the employment contract for all faculty, employees assigned to WSU any intellectual property arising out of their employment. WSU had a research-collaboration agreement (RCA) with E.I. Du Pont Nemours & Co. (DuPont) (plaintiff) under which all intellectual property discovered during the collaboration between WSU and DuPont was assigned to DuPont. As part of the collaboration and while Okuley was employed at WSU, Okuley discovered FAD2, a gene encoding the fatty acid desaturase enzyme. DuPont initiated the patent process for FAD2. Okuley agreed that he and another WSU scientist should be listed as coinventors on the patent application, but he then refused to cooperate further or sign off on the application unless he received a “reasonable royalty.” While the application was pending, DuPont sued Okuley in Ohio district court. DuPont sought a declaration that it owned FAD2 and for specific enforcement of Okuley’s agreement to cooperate. Okuley counterclaimed for a judgment that he was the sole inventor of FAD2 and sought to rescind his assignment of patent rights. The court granted summary judgment to DuPont on all issues. Okuley appealed to the Sixth Circuit but moved to transfer the appeal to the Federal Circuit. Okuley asserted that exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boggs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.