About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

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 I. INTRODUCTION 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. II. BACKGROUND 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. 263

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of 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.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most