Xechem International, Inc. v. University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
382 F.3d 1324 (2004)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Xechem International, Inc. (Xechem) (plaintiff), a biopharmaceutical company, worked with the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (university) (defendant), a Texas-owned entity, to develop a new cancer drug. Xechem filed a patent application naming one of its employees and one of the university’s employees as joint inventors. The university objected to the joint inventorship designation and filed its own application, naming its employee as a sole inventor. In addition, Xechem and the university entered into a license agreement giving Xechem an exclusive license to manufacture and market the drug. Neither the license agreement nor the research agreement Xechem and the university signed contained language allowing Xechem to sue the university. The university’s patent application was granted with its employee listed as the sole inventor. Subsequently, the university informed Xechem that it considered the license agreement to have terminated. Xechem sued the university, claiming that Xechem’s employee should also be listed as an inventor. The lower court dismissed the case, finding that the university was immune from suit as a state actor under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Xechem appealed, arguing that the university waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by entering into commercial research and license agreements with Xechem.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
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.