Legal Filings/Proceedings

In the introduction of the lawsuit filed in Federal court, case number 2:2009cv04012, in January 2009, the University of Missouri states it is the "lawful and proper owner of inventions, patents and patent applications conceived and reduced to practice by Galen Suppes and William R. Sutterlin during and in the course of their employment with the University."

This statement clearly indicates that Mizzou lays claim to all intellectual property developed by Suppes since his employment began in 2001, regardless of the circumstance of an invention. While the Bayh-Dole Act does grant universities rights in innovations developed with Federal funds, none of Suppes work was conducted with public funds. But Missouri's parameters for ownership of faculty works are very broad, much broader than most research university policies.

Further into the complaint, the University charges Suppes with violating the entire patent act. Suppes' attorneys said in their motion to dismiss the suit that "this broad citation demonstrates that the plaintiff could find no support for its allegation because there is no section of the Patent Act which defines these terms or supports plaintiff's allegation."

In the same vague fashion, the complaint also alleges rights violated related to "various patent applications" that have been "abandoned, denied and/or licensed to third parties without any knowledge on the part of the University." What are the "various" patent applications alluded to?

A quick search of the patent database on the U.S. Patent Office's website generates a full list of patents issued to and patent applications filed by Suppes. With this very detailed information available to Mizzou and its attorneys, why is the reference in the complaint so ambiguous?