Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/07/2020 at 20:58:17 (UTC).

KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO LTD VS BISSOX INCORPORATED ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7818

  • Filing Date:

    07/14/2009

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

FREDERICK C. SHALLER

MARY ANN MURPHY

RUTH ANN KWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD

BISSOX INCORPORATED

LEE SANG BONG

KOMINOX INC.

RADEMAKER BERNARDUS

YANG YONG JIN

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

BISSOX INCORPORATED

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

HAN STEVE

KIM BRYAN

LEE SANG BONG

PARK DEAN Y.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LAW O/O

LOWERY MICHELLE S.

WEINER ROBERT A.

MARTIN GREGG ADAM ESQ.

CHALK PAMELA CAROL

HAMMOND KATE MARIE

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

KIM JASMINE Y. ESQ.

HANDAL ANTON NASRI

STRABO JASON DAVID

SCHARE ALLAN LAWRENCE

LANGFORD TODD JOSEPH

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF RULING ON KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 170.6

5/11/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 170.6

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 Without prejudice as to Dean Park and Does 1 through 10 as named in Komipharm's 7/14/09 Complaint.

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal As to ABC Persons 1 through 10 as named in Komipharm's 1st Amend. Cross-Compl.

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.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

5/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Proof of Service by Mail

6/13/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Change of Firm Name

12/4/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: CONTINUATION OF THE MATTER SET...)

3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: CONTINUATION OF THE MATTER SET...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.S, OPPOSITION TO DR. LEES MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

4/17/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.S, OPPOSITION TO DR. LEES MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Reply - REPLY KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.S FURTHER REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

10/22/2020: Reply - REPLY KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.S FURTHER REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Minute Order -

2/8/2012: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

3/7/2013: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

9/10/2015: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

4/6/2017: Minute Order -

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: NOTICE OF RULING ON KOMIPHARM'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE NOVEMBER 1 AND NOVEMBER 2 HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

7/31/2017: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

DEFENDANT SANG BONG LEE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCMENTS, SET NO.ONE; ETC

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

NOTICE OF RULING OF MODIFIED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

10/26/2017: NOTICE OF RULING OF MODIFIED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

380 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 40; Case Management Conference (and Trial Setting Conference) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Case Management Confe...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketJudgment (JUDGMENT); Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Case Management Confe...) of 10/27/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sang Bong Lee (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
742 More Docket Entries
  • 07/17/2009
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2009
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2009
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2009
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2009
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2009
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2009
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2009
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ.; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2009
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/1982
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Komipharm International Co., LTD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIM JASMINE Y. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Anton Nasri Handal