US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. - 09-1159 (2011)
- Syllabus
- Opinion (Chief Justice Roberts)
- Concurrence (Justice Sotomayor,)
- Concurrence (Justice Sotomayor,)
- Dissent (Justice Breyer)
563 U. S. ____ (2011)
563 U. S. ____ (2011)
563 U. S. ____ (2011)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 09-1159
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, PETITIONER v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al:chanrobles.com-red
On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit
[June 6, 2011]
Justice Sotomayor, concurring:chanrobles.com-red
I agree with the Court’s resolution of this case and with its reasoning. I write separately to note that I share Justice Breyer’s concerns as to the principles adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 939 F. 2d 1568 (1991), and the application of those principles to agreements that implicate the Bayh-Dole Act. See post, at 6–10 (dissenting opinion). Because Stanford failed to challenge the decision below on these grounds, I agree that the appropriate disposition is to affirm. Like the dissent, however, I understand the majority opinion to permit consideration of these arguments in a future case. See ante, at 5, n. 2.