Patent Law Keyed to Adelman
Madey v. Duke University
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Dr. John M.J. Madey (Plaintiff) moved his successful lab with considerable lab equipment from Stanford to Duke University (Defendant). Plaintiff had sole ownership of two patents practiced by some of the lab equipment. Defendant eventually removed Plaintiff as lab director but continued using the lab equipment. Plaintiff resigned and then sued Defendant for patent infringement based on Defendant's continued use of the equipment. Defendant argued its use fell within the experimental use exception. Plaintiff argued Defendant's use was for commercial reasons. Defendant relied on its patent policy introduction, which stated Defendant did not engage in research or development for primarily commercial purposes. The district court agreed with Defendant and required Plaintiff to demonstrate Defendant's use was for "definite, cognizable, and not insubstantial commercial purposes." The district court also held the defense applied to experimental, non-profit purposes. Defendant's summary judgment motion was granted by the district court. Plaintiff appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.