Falana v. Kent State University

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an individual was a joint inventor of a patent claiming a type of compound because he contributed the method used to make the compounds, even though he left the research team before the team created the novel compounds
• so explaining with reference to Budinich and to the Supreme Court's post- Majorette Toys narrowing of pendent appellate jurisdiction
• joint inventorship where plaintiff had worked with named inventors for years and those inventors described research as “very much a team process”
• “Conception of a chemical compound requires knowledge of both the specific chemical structure of the compound and an operative method of making it.”
• \A joint invention is the product of a collaboration between two or more persons working together to solve the problem addressed.\ (quoting Burroughs Wellcome , 40 F.3d at 1227 )
• similar conclusion on different facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).