About | Free Trial

Last Update

2016-02-11T00:00:00.000Z

This profile was last updated on . .

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Wrong Robert Alexander?

Dr. Robert Alexander

MLK Celebration March and Rally Chair

King County

HQ Phone: (206) 205-9200

King County

516 3Rd Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98104

United States

Company Description

It's true that King County has been a leader in creating alternatives to juvenile detention: Cutting the number of youth detained from a daily high of 205 in the year 2000, to as low as 45 just last year. But even as the total number of youth in detention... more

Find other employees at this company (12,580)

Background Information

Employment History

Performance Analyst

Renton City Hall

Student Police Officer

City of Renton

Laboratory Manager

Lofstrand Labs Limited

Personell Manager

NW Industrial Staffing

Senior Scientist

Royal Women's Hospital

Education

B.S.
Biology
University of Maryland

Web References (17 Total References)


About Us: Lofstrand Laboratories Limited

www.lofstrand.com [cached]

Robert Alexander Laboratory Manager

...
Robert Alexander joined Lofstrand Labs in 1983 and is the most senior staff member with over twenty years with the company. Prior to joining Lofstrand, Bob worked with Dr. Smith as a senior research assistant performing molecular studies on the etiology of human cancer.
...
Bob received a B.S. in Biology from the University of Maryland, and serves as Laboratory Manager, Radiation Safety Officer and Head of the Molecular Probes Department.
Mr. Alexander worked together with other staff members at Lofstrand Labs in developing the In Situ Hybridization capability now offered by the company. Bob is also co-inventor of the Lofstrand Bactolift.


Who owns the IP employees create :: Sparke Helmore

www.sparke.com.au [cached]

Who owns a patent developed during a person's employment?  This was the question facing the Australian Patent Office in The Royal Children's Hospital v Robert Alexander.

...
Dr Alexander was employed by the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) as a Senior Scientist in the Virology Laboratory. During the course of his employment, Dr Alexander conceived two inventions and applied to have the inventions patented in his name. RCH disputed Dr Alexander's entitlement to the patents because of the employer-employee relationship, which it claimed meant that it owned the invention, and applied to have the application proceed in RCH's name.
...
The key issue in this case was whether there is an implied term in Dr Alexander's employment contract that inventions developed by Dr Alexander in the course of his employment would belong to RCH.
...
Dr Alexander did not obtain external funding for his research and was not pursuing individual research interests independent of those of his employer, and Dr Alexander's research was related to the primary purpose of the hospital and benefitted the hospital's interests.
Although there was no duty of confidentiality, normally an indication there is not an implied duty to invent, the Delegate noted that in this case the hospital's public interest role was served by disclosing and sharing new methods and techniques by making them publicly available. Accordingly, it was held that the lack of a duty of confidentiality did not remove an implied duty to invent in this situation.
This was enough for the Delegate to distinguish this case from UWA v Gray; however, the key issues of whether Dr Alexander had a "duty to invent" and the inventions were created in the course of his employment, had to be determined to answer the question of who owned the inventions.
Duty to invent
The Delegate noted that although there was no pure research conducted at RCH, Dr Alexander's role involved improving the clinical testing procedures at the hospital. This was held to be enough to result in a "duty to invent", although the duty was limited to the agreed purpose by reference to his job requirement, which in this case, was to identify potential areas of improvement.
The Delegate held that the inventions would have been invented in the course of Dr Alexander's employment, and therefore belong to RCH, if they were:
a solution to a recognised problem which Dr Alexander would have been reasonably expected to resolve, or a result of pursuing a particular avenue of research in the reasonable expectation of identifying potential improvements.
Assessing the Recovery Medium Invention against these criteria, the Delegate held that it was an extension of the work commenced by researchers in the RCH and it was an avenue of research which Dr Alexander would be expected to investigate further in the reasonable expectation of identifying potential improvements. Accordingly, it was held to have been invented in the course of Dr Alexander's employment and RCH was entitled to its ownership.
However, in the case of the Well Design Invention, the Delegate held that there was no clear motivation for Dr Alexander to pursue this avenue of research in the reasonable expectation of identifying improvements, and therefore it was not invented in the course of his employment, because:


Employment contracts

www.becklegal.com.au [cached]

A recent decision in the case of the Royal Children's Hospital v Robert Alexander [2011] APO 94 explored the issue of employees developing intellectual property within the workplace and whether ownership of the invention made by the employee is to be treated as being developed in the course of the employee's employment, and therefore deemed to be owned by the employer.

In this case two provisional patent applications were filed in the name of Dr Alexander who was engaged by the hospital as the head of virology. The first application (AP1) related to a virus recovery medium that assisted with the improved detection of viruses. The second patent application (AP2) related to a device used for viral diagnostics.
The hospital sought to intervene by filing a request that both AP1 and AP2 be filed in the name of the hospital alone on the basis that the inventions were created in the course of Dr Alexander's employment with RCH (the Hospital), arguing that Dr Alexander had a duty to invent within the scope of his duties and responsibilities with the Hospital.
The Australian Patent Office (APO) decided that AP1 was created in the course of Dr Alexander's employment, as the improvements made were within the scope of Dr Alexander's employment duties. However, conversely AP2 was found not to be an improvement that was directly needed for the hospital's purposes and was outside the scope of Dr Alexander's employment duties. The result being that the hospital was solely entitled to AP1 but not AP2.
The justification for the APO's decision, in finding that AP2 was the creation of Dr Alexander in which ownership belonged to Dr Alexander was that there was no clear motivation for Dr Alexander to pursue this avenue of research in the reasonable expectation of identifying improvements within the scope of his employment duties. In addition the problem in which he developed a solution for was not one in which he was expected to resolve.
This decision was reached by the APO notwithstanding that the hospital produced evidence that the Hospital maintained a company policy which stated that intellectual property generated by employees during the course of their employment was the property of the hospital, which formed part of the terms and conditions as contained in Dr Alexander's employment, and that therefore this was a mute point.
However, it was later conceded by both parties to this decision that this policy did not assist the Hospital, in seeking to claim ownership of AP2 because it was already successfully argued by Dr Alexander that AP2 was developed outside the course of his employment.
This decision highlights that it is critical for employers to ensure that when executing employment contracts that the scope, duty and responsibilities of the employee is clearly defined to capture any innovations and improvements which may be developed by employees when carrying out the course of their employment.
In these circumstances had the hospital not so narrowly defined the scope of Dr Alexander's employment, so as to include a duty to invent, innovate and improve existing hospital technologies then it is likely that the hospital would have been successful in claiming ownership in both provisional patents.


A recent decision in the case ...

www.becklegal.com.au [cached]

A recent decision in the case of the Royal Children's Hospital v Robert Alexander [2011] APO 94 explored the issue of employees developing intellectual property within the workplace and whether ownership of the invention made by the employee is to be treated as being developed in the course of the employee's employment, and therefore deemed to be owned by the employer.

In this case two provisional patent applications were filed in the name of Dr Alexander who was engaged by the hospital as the head of virology. The first application (AP1) related to a virus recovery medium that assisted with the improved detection of viruses. The second patent application (AP2) related to a device used for viral diagnostics.
The hospital sought to intervene by filing a request that both AP1 and AP2 be filed in the name of the hospital alone on the basis that the inventions were created in the course of Dr Alexander's employment with RCH (the Hospital), arguing that Dr Alexander had a duty to invent within the scope of his duties and responsibilities with the Hospital.
The Australian Patent Office (APO) decided that AP1 was created in the course of Dr Alexander's employment, as the improvements made were within the scope of Dr Alexander's employment duties. However, conversely AP2 was found not to be an improvement that was directly needed for the hospital's purposes and was outside the scope of Dr Alexander's employment duties. The result being that the hospital was solely entitled to AP1 but not AP2.
The justification for the APO's decision, in finding that AP2 was the creation of Dr Alexander in which ownership belonged to Dr Alexander was that there was no clear motivation for Dr Alexander to pursue this avenue of research in the reasonable expectation of identifying improvements within the scope of his employment duties. In addition the problem in which he developed a solution for was not one in which he was expected to resolve.
This decision was reached by the APO notwithstanding that the hospital produced evidence that the Hospital maintained a company policy which stated that intellectual property generated by employees during the course of their employment was the property of the hospital, which formed part of the terms and conditions as contained in Dr Alexander's employment, and that therefore this was a mute point.
However, it was later conceded by both parties to this decision that this policy did not assist the Hospital, in seeking to claim ownership of AP2 because it was already successfully argued by Dr Alexander that AP2 was developed outside the course of his employment.
This decision highlights that it is critical for employers to ensure that when executing employment contracts that the scope, duty and responsibilities of the employee is clearly defined to capture any innovations and improvements which may be developed by employees when carrying out the course of their employment.
In these circumstances had the hospital not so narrowly defined the scope of Dr Alexander's employment, so as to include a duty to invent, innovate and improve existing hospital technologies then it is likely that the hospital would have been successful in claiming ownership in both provisional patents.


A recent decision in the case ...

www.becklegal.com.au [cached]

A recent decision in the case of the Royal Children's Hospital v Robert Alexander [2011] APO 94 explored the issue of employees developing intellectual property within the workplace and whether ownership of the invention made by the employee is to be treated as being developed in the course of the employee's employment, and therefore deemed to be owned by the employer.

In this case two provisional patent applications were filed in the name of Dr Alexander who was engaged by the hospital as the head of virology. The first application (AP1) related to a virus recovery medium that assisted with the improved detection of viruses. The second patent application (AP2) related to a device used for viral diagnostics.
The hospital sought to intervene by filing a request that both AP1 and AP2 be filed in the name of the hospital alone on the basis that the inventions were created in the course of Dr Alexander's employment with RCH (the Hospital), arguing that Dr Alexander had a duty to invent within the scope of his duties and responsibilities with the Hospital.
The Australian Patent Office (APO) decided that AP1 was created in the course of Dr Alexander's employment, as the improvements made were within the scope of Dr Alexander's employment duties. However, conversely AP2 was found not to be an improvement that was directly needed for the hospital's purposes and was outside the scope of Dr Alexander's employment duties. The result being that the hospital was solely entitled to AP1 but not AP2.
The justification for the APO's decision, in finding that AP2 was the creation of Dr Alexander in which ownership belonged to Dr Alexander was that there was no clear motivation for Dr Alexander to pursue this avenue of research in the reasonable expectation of identifying improvements within the scope of his employment duties. In addition the problem in which he developed a solution for was not one in which he was expected to resolve.
This decision was reached by the APO notwithstanding that the hospital produced evidence that the Hospital maintained a company policy which stated that intellectual property generated by employees during the course of their employment was the property of the hospital, which formed part of the terms and conditions as contained in Dr Alexander's employment, and that therefore this was a mute point.
However, it was later conceded by both parties to this decision that this policy did not assist the Hospital, in seeking to claim ownership of AP2 because it was already successfully argued by Dr Alexander that AP2 was developed outside the course of his employment.
This decision highlights that it is critical for employers to ensure that when executing employment contracts that the scope, duty and responsibilities of the employee is clearly defined to capture any innovations and improvements which may be developed by employees when carrying out the course of their employment.
In these circumstances had the hospital not so narrowly defined the scope of Dr Alexander's employment, so as to include a duty to invent, innovate and improve existing hospital technologies then it is likely that the hospital would have been successful in claiming ownership in both provisional patents.

Similar Profiles

Other People with this Name

Other people with the name Alexander

Erica Alexander
QUEEN CREEK HIGH SCHOOL

Tiffani Alexander
Association of Corporate Counsel

Nadja Alexander
Conflict Coaching International

Kevin Alexander
Lake Worth Christian School

Cedric Alexander
Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department

Browse ZoomInfo's Business Contact Directory by City

Browse ZoomInfo's
Business People Directory

Browse ZoomInfo's
Advanced Company Directory