On 07/14/2009 KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO LTD filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against BISSOX INCORPORATED. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are FREDERICK C. SHALLER, MARY ANN MURPHY and RUTH ANN KWAN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****7818
07/14/2009
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
FREDERICK C. SHALLER
MARY ANN MURPHY
RUTH ANN KWAN
KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD
BISSOX INCORPORATED
LEE SANG BONG
KOMINOX INC.
RADEMAKER BERNARDUS
YANG YONG JIN
BISSOX INCORPORATED
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
HAN STEVE
KIM BRYAN
LEE SANG BONG
PARK DEAN Y.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LAW O/O
LOWERY MICHELLE S.
WEINER ROBERT A.
MARTIN GREGG ADAM ESQ.
CHALK PAMELA CAROL
HAMMOND KATE MARIE
KIM JASMINE Y. ESQ.
HANDAL ANTON NASRI
STRABO JASON DAVID
SCHARE ALLAN LAWRENCE
LANGFORD TODD JOSEPH
5/11/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 170.6
10/29/2018: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal Without prejudice as to Dean Park and Does 1 through 10 as named in Komipharm's 7/14/09 Complaint.
10/29/2018: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal As to ABC Persons 1 through 10 as named in Komipharm's 1st Amend. Cross-Compl.
5/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))
6/13/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
12/4/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name
3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: CONTINUATION OF THE MATTER SET...)
4/17/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.S, OPPOSITION TO DR. LEES MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
10/22/2020: Reply - REPLY KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.S FURTHER REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2/8/2012: Minute Order -
3/7/2013: Minute Order -
9/10/2015: Minute Order -
4/6/2017: Minute Order -
7/31/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON KOMIPHARM'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE NOVEMBER 1 AND NOVEMBER 2 HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL
7/31/2017: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL
8/18/2017: DEFENDANT SANG BONG LEE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCMENTS, SET NO.ONE; ETC
10/26/2017: NOTICE OF RULING OF MODIFIED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Cross-Complainant)
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 40; Case Management Conference (and Trial Setting Conference) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Granted
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Case Management Confe...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketJudgment (JUDGMENT); Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Cross-Defendant)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Case Management Confe...) of 10/27/2020); Filed by Clerk
DocketReply (KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.?S FURTHER REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Plaintiff)
DocketReply (FURTHER REPLY DECLARATION OF JASON D. STRABO IN SUPPORT OF KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.?S FURTHER REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Plaintiff)
DocketObjection (KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.?S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF DR. SANG BONG LEE IN OPPOSITION TO KOMIPHARM?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sang Bong Lee (Cross-Defendant)
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
DocketSUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ.; ETC.
DocketComplaint; Filed by null
DocketNotice; Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC417818 Hearing Date: June 29, 2020 Dept: 40
Parties/Counsel Are Strongly Encouraged to Appear Telephonically
The Number of Persons Permitted In the Courtroom is Extremely Limited
Facial Masks/Coverings Are Mandatory for Courthouse/Courtroom Entry
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sang Bong Lee
OPPOSITION: Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Komipharm International Co., Ltd
Plaintiff Komipharm International Co., Ltd., (“Komipharm”) sues Defendant/Cross-Defendant Sang Bong Lee (“Lee”) based on allegations that Lee is not entitled to patent rights or profits from an arsenic-based anticancer drug.
In October 2004, U.S. Patent Application No. 10/962,357 (“the 357 application”) was filed listing Lee and Yong Jin Yang (“Yang”), President of Komipharm, as the inventors of the drug. In 2008, Lee signed an agreement by which he assigned his rights to the drug to Komipharm. Komipharm alleges that it subsequently discovered that Lee was not the inventor of the drug. Komipharm moved to remove Lee and Yang as inventors and moved to add Bernardus Rademaker (“Rademaker”) as the inventor of the drug.
Rademaker also assigned his interest in the drug to Komipharm. However, Lee opposed his deletion and in 2009 Komipharm filed a complaint. On October 31, 2011, Lee filed a continuation application, U.S. Patent Application No. 13/285,693 (“the 693 application”). Both the 397 and 693 applications are suspended pending a resolution of the ownership dispute.
Komipharm argues that it can establish ownership of the suspended applications based on 1) Lee assigning the applications to Komipharm and 2) Rademaker, as the sole inventor, assigning the applications to Komipharm.
The remaining issue is whether the Court can determine if either Lee or Rademaker is the true inventor of the patent applications.
Komipharm argues that the Court would have jurisdiction even if their ownership claims were solely based on Rademaker’s inventorship of the drug. Komipharm cites to Consolidated World Housewares, Inc. v. Finkle (Fed. Cir. 1987) 831 F.2d 261, 265, which stated “[t]hat a contract action may involve a determination of the true inventor does not convert that action into one ‘arising under’ the patent laws.” Komipharm also cites Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer America Corp. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2020) No. 19-1522, 2020 WL 1647241, at *3, 4, which held that the plaintiff company “did not need to prove inventorship under federal law to establish [trade secret] ownership” even though inventorship was the “only theory of its case.”
In Consolidated World Houseware, an inventor assigned the rights to an invention to a company. A second inventor then claimed to be the true inventor and assigned his rights to the company. The company proceeded to file a suit for a declaration as to which of the two inventors was the true inventor. (Id. at p. 263.) The Court of Appeal found that the district court lacked jurisdiction because “any controversy between the parties, if controversy there be, can only be contractual.” (Id. at p. 265.)
Consolidated World Houseware is not helpful because in that case it was undisputed that the company owned the invention and the patent applications because both purported inventors had assigned their rights to it.
Here, Komipharm’s alternate theory is that Lee had no rights to assign because he was not the inventor. Similarly, Intellisoft is also unhelpful because in that case the court found that a company did not need to prove inventorship to establish ownership and instead “needed to show only that Intellisoft [the company] by assignment from Bierman was the owner of the trade secrets.”
Komipharm also cites the decision from USPTO which states that “[t]he dispute over this application is now within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California.” (Komipharm Ex. 1, p. 6.) However, USPTO’s ruling addressed the issue of whether Lee assigned his rights to Komipharm and did not discuss Rademaker’s assignment. In fact, the USPTO found that the ownership claim should be raised in state court only after finding “that none of the documents recorded in the USPTO for the instant application conclusively establish that Lee transferred his entire right, title, and interest in the instant application to Komipharm. (Ibid.)
This Court agrees with USPTO that it can rule on the issue of whether Lee assigned his right to the applications.
The Court has jurisdiction and can adjudicate the ownership issue, i.e., whether Lee assigned his rights to the applications to Komipharm.
However, the Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether Lee or Rademaker invented the drug. As acknowledged by Komipharm, the Rademaker alternate theory of ownership is “premised on Dr. Rademaker being the sole true inventor of the suspended applications….” (Oppo., 5-19:20.) The proper venue to decide the inventorship of the pending applications is the USPTO.
Conclusion: Lee’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.