State Versus Fed Angles
Although the Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question of whether state technology transfer laws, such as the
Florida and Connecticut regulations described above, are preempted, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Stanford strongly suggests it would hold that such laws are likewise inconsistent with the basic, long-standing ideas of our federal
patent system. State laws that purport to vest initial ownership of invention rights in the inventor's university employer
by operation of law are clearly in conflict with the idea that initial rights to inventions are vested in inventors, who may
later assign their rights to others. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that state laws that conflict with
federal law are without effect. Therefore, state technology transfer laws like those above are likely preempted and not enforceable.
Ironically, lower courts before Stanford have said that states generally can enact laws to control the transfer of patent rights. For example, in 2009, the Federal Circuit held that foreclosure proceedings
under Massachusetts law effectively transferred patent ownership without an assignment in writing. In another 2008 case, the
Federal Circuit held that when an inventor died intestate, his patent rights passed to his wife by operation of state law.
In yet another case, in 1997 a New York district court held that state law governed the disposition of patent rights in divorce
proceedings. In these circumstances, state laws controlling the transfer of patent rights are not preempted by federal law.
While the lower courts' general policy is correct in most contexts, state technology transfer laws such as Florida's and Connecticut's
are very different than the state laws in the those cases. Most importantly, the state laws in the lower court cases do not
involve the initial vesting of rights at the moment when the inventor first conceives of the invention, but instead involve transfers of patent rights further down the line. Vesting and transferring of property rights are separate legal concepts. Moreover,
the lower court cases involve state laws that concern the disposition of property generally, and only incidentally involve
patent issues. And finally, the Supreme Court's characterization in Stanford of inventors' initial rights to their own inventions as a foundational premise of our patent system suggests that inventors
get special protection. After all, the Constitution provides that the whole purpose of intellectual property law is "to promote
the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries." Accordingly, even though lower courts have upheld state laws transferring patent rights
by operation of law in some contexts, it doesn't weaken the argument that the state technology transfer laws are preempted
by federal patent law.
What points can the pharmaceutical industry glean from this discussion? First, state technology transfer laws can present
a potential trap for any company that employs researchers. If a researcher makes discoveries while working for a public university,
then later assigns the invention rights to a subsequent employer, under certain state laws a court could find that the assignment
to the employer is not valid—even if the inventor never assigned any rights to the university. Accordingly, pharmaceutical
companies should take special care with this aspect of due diligence before prosecuting patent applications or purchasing
Secondly, and more importantly, however, there is a strong argument that these state technology transfer laws are preempted
and not enforceable. Although the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the question yet, its reasoning in the recent Stanford case strongly suggests these state laws are in conflict with the basic idea in federal patent law that inventors are vested
with the initial rights to their inventions, which states cannot alter. Consequently, it is likely to be only a matter of
time before these overreaching state technology transfer laws are definitively overruled.
John Shaeffer is a partner with Lathrop & Gage LLP and heads the firm's IP litigation department. He can be reached at email@example.com
Brianna Dahlberg is an associate with Lathrop & Gage LLP practicing in the firm's Los Angeles office. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org