Search for: "Mark Holodniy"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2011, 10:37 am
Mark Holodniy—is required. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 6:15 am
Mark Holodniy—is required. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 7:45 am
Mark Holodniy—is required. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 2:58 pm
In 1988, Mark Holodniy joined a Stanford laboratory, and signed an assignment agreement with the university. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 7:54 am
Mark Holodniy when he was at Stanford in the late 1980s. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 6:06 pm
Mark Holodniy. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 8:29 pm
The technology related to the patents was developed by researchers at Stanford and Cetus and the collaborations between Stanford and Cetus included a series of written agreements signed by Stanford researcher Mark Holodniy, one of the inventors on the patents, who collaborated with Cetus on the development of the test kits. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 5:45 am
Roche, Mark Holodniy, a Stanford post-doc developed an assay for HIV partially at Cetus, a (then) small Silicon Valley biotechnology company, and partially at Stanford. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 7:49 am
Mark Holodniy, who was working on a collaboration between the university and Cetus, assigned his rights in his future inventions to Cetus, whose PCR business was later acquired by Roche. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 7:25 am
The inventor, Mark Holodniy, signed contracts with both the Junior University (in 1988) and Roche's predecessor-in-interest (in the following year). [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 8:18 am
Should (as the Federal Circuit held) Roche (or more appropriately its predecessor, Cetus) by using the language “I will assign and do hereby assign” (aka the “Cetus Assignment Clause”) trump what may have been an earlier obligation by a Stanford University researcher (Mark Holodniy) to assign invention rights to Stanford University (aka the “Stanford University Assignment Obligation”)? [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 11:05 am
Mark Holodniy) had assigned his rights to Cetus, which Roche later acquired, and the Bayh-Dole Act did not give Stanford University the right to trump that assignment. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 12:12 pm
This case involves a Stanford researcher (Mark Holodniy) who was under a prior contractual duty to assign invention rights to Stanford but who actually assigned rights to Cetus. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 7:57 am
However, one of the inventors, Professor Mark Holodniy, had also, prior to the invention, actually assigned his rights in future inventions to Cetus (now Roche). [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 7:10 am
The issue arose because a Stanford employee, Mark Holodniy, regularly visited biotech company Cetus (now Roche) to observe its work. [read post]
10 Oct 2009, 1:54 am
Stanford would have lost on either point.See previous IPBiz post:Stanford takes a hit at the CAFC in Roche HIV matterAs a footnote, the Stanford Daily notes that Holodniy (the key figure in the case) is currently a professor at the School of Medicine.Disclaimer: LBE obtained his Ph.D. at Stanford University. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 11:45 am
Holodniy’s invention. [read post]
