Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Richard Hung, Jacob Nagy, and Evangeline Phang authored an article for The IP Strategist discussing a recent Federal Circuit opinion in BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) that sheds light on the process for settling patent co-ownership disputes pursuant to an underlying agreement.



Fishing for Joint Patent Ownership Under ‘BASF v. CSIRO’

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Richard Hung, Jacob Nagy, and Evangeline Phang authored an article for The IP Strategist discussing a recent Federal Circuit opinion in BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) that sheds light on the process for settling patent co-ownership disputes pursuant to an underlying agreement.“Had BASF developed an argument based on the survival provision’s application to the ownership provision, it might have garnered more sympathy from the court,” the authors wrote. “The majority in BASF determined that the only guidance for intellectual property developed after the MTEA’s [Materials Transfer and Evaluation Agreement] termination appeared in the MTEA’s ownership provisions. Per the majority, BASF’s interpretation of the MTEA ‘made no commercial sense,’ as ‘[the] MTEA had a two-year term, and the parties knew that each would learn lessons from the joint work and would continue work in the field when the agreement ended.’ In her dissent, Judge Newman emphasized the MTEA’s survival clause, which required that the ‘joint ownership provisions remain[ed] in effect after [the MTEA’s] expiration.’ The majority did not address this provision at all, and BASF referred to it only in passing in its opening brief. This failure to emphasize the survival provision therefore may have been a missed opportunity for BASF.”Read the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/2022/06/01/fishing-for-joint-patent-ownership-under-basf-v-csiro/?slreturn=20220501164324">full article</a>.