| Syllabus
|
Opinion
[Roberts] |
Concurrence
[Sotomayor] |
Dissent
[Breyer] |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD
JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, PETITIONER
v.
ROCHE
MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
Justice Sotomayor, concurring.
I agree with the Court’s resolution of this case and with its reasoning. I write separately to note that I share Justice Breyer<font caps="1">’ s concerns as to the principles adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc. , 939 F. 2d 1568 (1991), and the application of those principles to agreements that implicate the Bayh-Dole Act. See post , at 6–10 (dissenting opinion). Because Stanford failed to challenge the decision below on these grounds, I agree that the appropriate disposition is to affirm. Like the dissent, however, I understand the majority opinion to permit consideration of these arguments in a future case. See ante , at 5, n. 2.