Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Fujikawa v. Wattanasin

93 F.3d 1559 (Fed.Cir.1996)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Fujikawa v. Wattanasin

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

93 F.3d 1559 (Fed.Cir.1996)

Facts

In August 1987, Yoshihiro Fujikawa (plaintiff) received patents for: (1) certain chemical compounds that inhibit the body’s synthesis of cholesterol and (2) the method of using those chemical compounds to treat people with high cholesterol. Fujikawa had developed these inventions overseas. Sompong Wattanasin (defendant) began testing these same chemical compounds in 1982 and worked with them until 1985. Wattanasin’s project was then put on hold for about two years, but he resumed testing in January 1987. Wattanasin’s employer, Sandoz, decided to file a patent application for Wattanasin’s invention in January 1988, and the application was filed in March 1989. Both Fujikawa and Wattanasin asked the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (Board) for an interference. An interference is an administrative proceeding to determine which party should be awarded priority of invention. The Board found that Wattanasin had priority for both patents. Fujikawa appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Clevenger, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 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.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership