Thursday, April 24, 2014

CAFC examines 35 USC 141 in VAILLANCOURT v. Becton Dickinson

The CAFC easily disposed of the issue in VAILLANCOURT v. Becton Dickinson :

Though the parties in this case have argued about “standing,” the Supreme Court recently clarified that some issues often discussed in “standing” terms are better viewed as interpretations of a statutory cause of action. See Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386-88 (2014). Because the issue here focuses on § 141, this opinion directly addresses the scope of that cause of action. As Vaillancourt is not the owner of the ’221 patent, he cannot bring this appeal before the court, for lack of a cause of action. Accordingly, this court dismisses the appeal.


Post a Comment

<< Home