Therien v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 746 (2006)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Michael Therien (plaintiff) was a tenured chemistry professor at the University of Pennsylvania (the university). The university had various policies relating to inventions that were developed by employees with the assistance of federal funding. For example, the patent policy required faculty to assign their rights in future inventions to the university. The university obtained several patents based on Therien’s work. In 2004, Therien sued the university, alleging state-law claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Therien’s claims were based on the university’s failure to satisfy its obligations to him arising from university policies and Therien’s employment contract. Therien alleged that the university had failed to properly commercialize the technology developed by Therien. In turn, the university removed the case to federal district court on the basis that the complaint was in reality alleging a breach of the university’s obligations under the Bayh-Dole Act (the act). The university asserted affirmative defenses based on patent law and the act, which, according to the university, negated any duty owed to faculty-inventors. Therien filed a motion to remand the case to state court based on the district court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schiller, 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.
