In a non-precedential opinion in Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington, [2016-2320] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, on grounds of soverign immunity, of Ali’s lawsuit to be added as a co-inventor on several of defendants’ patents. The district of Oregon court dismissed UMass on the ground that it is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, where the court dismissed the case for want of an indispensible party.
Ali argued that the Oregon court erred in refusing to conclude that UMass waived sovereign immunity when, in return for federal funding under the Bayh-Dole Act. The Federal Circuit noted that the question of Eleventh Amendment waiver is a matter of Federal Circuit law, and that a district court’s decision on sovereign immunity is subject to de novo review. The Federal Circuit said that UMass waives sovereign immunity under only two circumstances: first, if the state on its own initiative invokes the jurisdiction of the federal courts; and second, upon a clear declaration by the state of its intent to submit to federal jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit said that UMass’s alleged agreement to be subject to suit by the federal government under a contract controlled by and consistent with the Bayh-Dole Act did not operate as a “clear declaration” that it waived its sovereign immunity
as to Mr. Ali’s suit against it for damages arising from his alleged omission as a co-inventor of the patents-in-suit.
The net result is that it is impossible for an omitted inventor to correct inventorship of a patent that is at least partially owned by a government entity.