In the case of Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., et al., 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roche Molecular Systems, asserting that a researcher's rights to an invention can supersede those of a university where they are employed. The dispute began when Dr. Mark Holodniy joined Stanford University and signed an agreement stating inventions made during his employment would be assigned to Stanford; however, he also collaborated with Cetus (later acquired by Roche) on HIV research and signed another agreement assigning inventions from this collaboration to Cetus/Roche. When both parties claimed ownership over patents resulting from this work, the court determined that under US patent law’s “first-to-invent” principle - which was applicable at that time - Holodniy had initial possession as inventor and his subsequent assignment to Cetus took precedence over any claim by Stanford.

In the dissenting opinion for the case between Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University and Roche Molecular Systems, Justice Breyer argued that majority's interpretation was inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act’s primary objective. He believed that Congress intended to ensure that private corporations could not control federally funded inventions without some assurance they would be made available to public. The majority's decision allowed a single faculty member or researcher at a university to assign patent rights in violation of this principle. Furthermore, he disagreed with their reading of "subject invention" as it failed to consider other parts of statute which indicated an inventor might hold rights only if contractor did not elect to retain them. Lastly, he pointed out practical problems arising from majority’s approach such as creating uncertainty about title ownership and discouraging collaborative research efforts due its potential legal complications.