Opinion ID: 1190344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Application of Agency Law to the Exclusion of Patent Law in the Disputed Instructions was Prejudicial Error.

Text: At trial, evidence and testimony pertaining to Dr. Yu's efforts in developing the GAD created questions about whether and to what extent his work at L.A. Biomed's facilities could be used to show a breach of the P & C Agreement by Dr. White. Part of Dr. White's defense was that absent evidence of agency between Dr. White and Dr. Yu, L.A. Biomed had no right to claim any rights in the patented devices that they later conceived or reduced to practice at L.A. Biomed. L.A. Biomed proposed that no agency instruction be given and that the Conceive instruction should contain a paragraph summarizing the patent law principle of co-inventorshipspecifically, that an invention can be conceived jointly where each inventor makes a significant contribution to [its] conception. [3] L.A. Biomed proposed further that the Reduce to Practice instruction include a paragraph summarizing the similar patent law principle that [a]cts related to reduction to practice that are performed by a co-inventor . . . should be considered as if they had been performed by the inventor himself. [4] L.A. Biomed stated also in its proposed instructions that, in the alternative, if any agency instruction was given, a model agency instruction should be given. Dr. White proposed a long instruction that applied agency law. The district court eventually decided to give the model agency instructionentitling it Work of Dr. Yu [5]  and not to include the proposed co-inventor language in the Conceive and Reduce to Practice instructions. The district court opined at the charge conference that the model agency instruction was the best method for dealing with Dr. Yu's contributions to the invention of the GAD because it seems to capture the points that both sides want to argue without unduly restricting the jury and giving them some structure. 1. L.A. Biomed Preserved Its Objections to the Disputed Instructions. As an initial matter, Dr. White argues that L.A. Biomed waived any objection to the disputed instructions either by failing to object at the charge conference or by later acquiescing to the district court's final instructions. For an objection to a jury instruction to be valid, the objection must be made on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection. FED. R. CIV. P. 51(c)(1). In its proposed jury instructions L.A. Biomed stated clearly its position that no agency instruction should be given as an agency instruction is irrelevant and confusing. L.A. Biomed submits that the effect of [Drs. Yu and White's] collaboration is more appropriately addressed in L.A. Biomed's proposed conception and reduction to practice instruction[s]. At the charge conference, L.A. Biomed's counsel distinctly stated her objection to the application of agency law, instead of patent law, in both the Work of Dr. Yu and Reduce to Practice instructions. Thus, L.A. Biomed preserved for appeal its objection to these two instructions. Dr. White argues also that L.A. Biomed waived its objection by acquiescing to the Conceive instruction when its counsel responded at the charge conference, I think that's fine, after the district court read the version that was ultimately presented to the jury. Although [t]his court has enjoyed a reputation as the strictest enforcer of Rule 51, we recognize a limited exception [w]here the district court is aware of a party's concerns and further objection would be unavailing. Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1326 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The exception is available when (1) throughout the trial the party argued the disputed matter with the court, (2) it is clear from the record that the court knew the party's grounds for disagreement with the instruction, and (3) the party offered an alternative instruction. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). At trial, after L.A. Biomed submitted its proposed instructions but prior to L.A. Biomed's alleged acquiescence, the district court had rejected the co-inventorship language from the Conceive instruction. Specifically, the court stated, I was concerned when I was reading some of the proposed . . . instructions on this issue that we were kind of slopping over into . . . inventorship, co-inventorship, which is a totally different body of law that this jury is not going to be considering. Thus it is clear that the district court was aware of L.A. Biomed's disagreement with the Conceive instruction and that further objection at the charge conference would have been unavailing. [6] Therefore, we conclude that L.A. Biomed's objection to the Conceive instruction was preserved. See id.