Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
104 F.3d 489 (1997)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Cambridge Biotech Corp. (CBC) (debtor) manufactured and sold HIV test kits. Institut Pasteur owned patented procedures for diagnosing HIV2. In 1989, CBC and Pasteur entered cross-licenses allowing CBC to use Pasteur’s HIV2 procedures in CBC’s test kits. The cross-licenses broadly prohibited assignment or sublicensing but allowed either party to extend the benefits to affiliates including parent companies. CBC insisted on a right to terminate any sublicense Pasteur extended to a company called Genetic Systems if control of the company changed hands. CBC filed for reorganization in 1994 and continued to operate its HIV test-kit business as debtor-in-possession. CBC’s reorganization plan proposed that CBC would assume both cross-licenses and continue operating using Pasteur’s patented HIV2 procedures but sell all CBC’s stock to a bioMerieux subsidiary that competed directly with Pasteur. Pasteur objected, arguing that essentially amounted to CBC assuming the cross-licenses and assigning them to a third party, violating the cross-license terms and the federal common-law rule that patents are presumptively nonassignable. The bankruptcy court nonetheless authorized CBC to assume the cross-licenses. The district court affirmed, and Pasteur appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cyr, 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.
