Nutrition 21 v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
930 F.2d 862 (1991)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
The United States (plaintiff) owned the patent to a specified dietary supplement (the ’927 patent). The ’927 patent was developed based on federally funded research. The United States granted an exclusive license under the ’927 patent to Nutrition 21 (plaintiff) to make, use, and sell licensed products. The license agreement authorized Nutrition 21 to bring patent-infringement suits in its own name and on its own behalf, at its own expense, and to retain any recovered damages. Thereafter, Nutrition 21 sued Thorne Research, Inc. (Thorne) (defendant) for infringing the ’927 patent. The United States, represented by the Department of Justice, declined to voluntarily join the suit, but Nutrition 21 joined the government anyway as an involuntary plaintiff, fearing that the action would be dismissed for lack of an indispensable party—the patent owner—based on existing caselaw. The district court ruled that joinder of the United States was necessary, and the United States appealed. On appeal, both Nutrition 21 and the government argued that joinder of the United States was not necessary under the circumstances of their licensing agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rich, 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.
