Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act.

[1] The judges affirmed the common understanding of U.S. constitutional law that inventors originally own inventions they make, and contractual obligations to assign those rights to third parties are secondary.

When Holodniy had joined the faculty of Stanford shortly before he had visited Cetus, he, like all scientific personnel at companies and research institutions, had signed an agreement in which he agreed that his employer would own any inventions he made.

Under standard business practice, Cetus had Holodniy sign a confidentiality agreement before allowing him into their facilities.

Some of Stanford's research that was related to the HIV measurement technique was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), thereby subjecting the invention to the Bayh–Dole Act.

The U.S. Constitution grants inventors ownership of inventions they make under the Copyright Clause which grants Congress the authority "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Roche argued, that it had acquired rights to the patents, when it purchased Cetus, and pleaded the ownership theory in three forms: (i) as a declaratory judgment counterclaim; (ii) as an affirmative defense; and (iii) as a challenge to Stanford's standing to sue for infringement.

The district court held, that Roche's counterclaim for ownership of the patents was barred by California statutes of limitation.

[14] The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Roche's ownership counterclaim was barred by the California statutes of limitation, but held that the affirmative defense of ownership was not barred, and that "questions of standing can be raised at any time and are not foreclosed by, or subject to, statutes of limitation."

Stanford appealed to the Supreme Court based on its argument that Bayh-Dole overrides normal ownership of inventions.

The decision was "largely moot" as the majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, held that U.S. patent rights have always (since 1790) initially vested in "the inventor" and that the non-specific language of the Bayh–Dole Act does nothing to change the original setup.