International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research

257 F.3d 1324 (2001)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
257 F.3d 1324 (2001)

Facts

In 1970, Jack Masquelier and others formed the Societe Civile D’Investigations Pharmacologiques D’Aquitane (SCIPA), a French corporation. In 1985, SCIPA executed a contract with Horphag Overseas Ltd. (Horphag) (defendant), an English corporation, to develop medical products. Under the contract, patent applications were to be filed jointly and the proceeds from patent assignment to be shared. The contract included a choice-of-forum clause giving the courts of Bourdeaux, France, exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning interpretation or performance. In 1985, an application for a United States patent was filed listing Masquelier as the sole inventor of a method of extracting an antiaging ingredient from plant cells. Masquelier assigned his patent rights to SCIPA and Horphag. In 1994, SCIPA assigned its rights under the patent to International Nutrition Company (INC) (plaintiff). The contract expired in 1995. Horphag sued SCIPA and INC in French court to void the transfer to INC. In 1996, Masquelier assigned any rights in the patent that reverted to him to INC. The French court found that the 1994 assignment to INC violated the contract and French statute law limiting unilateral assignment of patent rights by one joint owner. The court found that INC was not a bona fide purchaser and that Masquelier had no rights in 1996 to assign to INC. The French court held that INC had no rights in the patent. Meanwhile, INC sued in United States district court, asserting that Horphag had infringed the patent. INC argued that the French ruling conflicted with 35 U.S.C. § 262, which allowed a joint patent owner to unilaterally assign rights absent agreement to the contrary. The district court granted summary judgment for Horphag on international-comity grounds, finding that the French court had properly decided the case, and that INC had no standing to sue. On appeal, INC argued that only United States federal courts could rule on ownership of a United States patent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mayer, C.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 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 814,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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