-411-
technical legal ownership rights in the know-how produced under
the research project. Kanter contended that IRC did hold “other
valuable rights” in the research know-how outside of any existing
and derivative future “patent rights” in the NPT-15000 series of
compounds retained by Newport and Sloan-Kettering.158 However,
158 Kanter testified as follows:
[Kanter]: Well, I can’t speak to it, Your Honor,
in terms of being a patent attorney, and I don't
profess to necessarily understand what a patent
attorney would testify to as an expert, but it was my
understanding that the documents here [i.e., the
IRC-Newport R&D and License Agreement and the March 28,
1978, agreement between Newport and Sloan-Kettering],
which are part and parcel of the manner in which the *
* * [Court] developed its opinion in Cook, involved
patent rights as a form of rights that belonged to * *
* (Newport] and Sloan-Kettering under the documents.
The other rights [belonging to IRC] would be
those, of course, that exist if no patent rights were
obtained, and any other rights that were not
encompassed by any patent rights that were defined, so
that there was a body of rights that could be available
to IRC.
Absent Newport * * * and Sloan-Kettering
undertaking something that would preclude a given
right, if they were granted such a right, IRC had the
basic rights it could proceed with, should a product be
developed from this particular research.
The Court: So I guess what you are saying is, * *
* that the researcher really has * * * [retained the
rights to develop the technology]
* * * * *
[Kanter]: Right. And I think that is one of the
things they do go on, and the Court, in * * * [Estate
of Cook], pointed to the fact that Newport,.and
Sloan-Kettering appeared, under the definition of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011