The applicant, a health science company, sought a declaration that it owned a family of patent applications filed by the respondents relating to a 'Device-Less Invention' for cellular transplantation.
The applicant argued the invention was a modification of its own technology and was developed using confidential information obtained by the respondent doctor during a consulting agreement.
The respondents brought a motion to stay the application based on a forum selection clause in a separate clinical trial agreement, which the court dismissed after finding the consulting agreement governed the dispute.
On the merits, the court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent doctor had independently conceived and demonstrated the utility of the invention years before entering into the consulting agreement with the applicant.
