About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

14 J. Contemp. L. 263 (1988)
Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.: Master of Matter

handle is hein.journals/jcontemlaw14 and id is 269 raw text is: Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.:
Master of Matter
In 1986 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.' reversed in all re-
spects the district court's holding that the patent in the suit was in-
valid. The court of appeals remanded the issue of infringement which
the district court had held moot.' The appellate court severely criti-
cized the district court for adopting verbatim as part of its opinion
the pretrial brief and pretrial findings of fact and conclusions of law
submitted by Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.'
This Note will examine trial court opinions drafted by the prevail-
ing party or adopted verbatim from documents submitted by the pre-
vailing party. The Note will then analyze the Hybritech decision and
the possible effect a master or patent judge would have had on the
outcome had one been appointed.
Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the trial
court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in all actions
tried upon the facts without a jury and in granting or refusing inter-
locutory injunctions. One purpose of requiring findings of fact is to
aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the
basis for the trial court's decision.5 As Senior District Judge James
Harvey stated in his concurring opinion in Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic
Controls Corp.,' Rule 52(a) serves a threefold purpose: It ensures
care in the preparation of an opinion, defines the res judicata limita-
tions of a decision for future cases and provides appellate courts with
the benefit of the District Court's insights into a case.7 He further
I Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
107 S. Ct. 1606 (1987).
Hybritech, 802 F.2d at 1385.
* Id. at 1374.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
Acme Boat Rentals, Inc. v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 407 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir. 1969); Gulf
King Shrimp Co. v. Wirtz, 407 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1969); Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F.2d 104
(9th Cir. 1962).
776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Id. at 318; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2571 at 679-80.


What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most