Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04152/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04152-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

2

 The Court will refer to the actual, physical mice whose ownership is contested as “the

physical mice” in an effort to distinguish ownership of the mice as an object from more extensive

ownership rights, such as rights to perform certain experiments on the mice or rights to the

Case No. C 06-04152 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 12/22/2006**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COMPARATIVE BIOSCIENCES, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGIOGENEX, INC. et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-04152 JF (HRL)

ORDER1 RE. MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[re: docket no. 12]

Defendant and cross-claimant AngioGenex, Inc. (“AGX”) moves for a preliminary

injunction. Plaintiff and cross-defendant Comparative Biosciences, Inc. (“CBI”) opposes the

motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dispose of the motion as set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute about the breeding of special laboratory mice to genetic

specifications, and the housing and physical possession of the mice (“the physical mice”).2 On

Case 5:06-cv-04152-JF Document 23 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 intellectual property associated with the specific genetic makeup of the mice.

2

Case No. C 06-04152 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

May 26, 2006, CBI filed the instant action in Santa Clara Superior Court. CBI alleged that in or

around June 2002, the parties entered into a series of project agreements whereby “Plaintiff, in

consideration for cash payments, agreed (1) to breed special laboratory mice according to genetic

specifications provided by Defendants, and/or each of them (‘the Mice’), (2) to house and

maintain the Mice, (3) to provide the Mice at the direction of Defendants, and/or each of them, to

Defendants, and/or each of them, and/or to third-parties for use in biotechnology-related studies,

(4) to perform genotyping for certain gene expression in the Mice by using a method provided by

AngioGenex and blood smear analysis for certain other genotype identification of the Mice, and

(5) other technical and project-related consulting services for Defendants, and/or each of them.” 

Complaint ¶ 7. CBI alleges that each project agreement is governed by California law. Id. ¶ 8.

CBI asserts two claims for relief in the complaint. First, it alleges that AGX breached the

project agreements between the parties, and that AGX owes CBI $233,287.72 as of May 15,

2006. Id. Second, CBI brings a claim for declaratory relief, alleging that:

[a]n actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties concerning

their respective rights and duties under the Project Agreements, including without

limitation the ownership and control of bred and housed, but unpaid-for Mice, and

pursuant to a grant from the National Institute of Health, 1 R43EY015385-01A1

To Treat Some Ocular Diseases with Id1/ID3 Inhibitors . . . . For example,

Defendants have asserted that if Plaintiff proceeds unilaterally with the Grant

Work, including in vivo studies with the subject Mice, then Plaintiff is in

violation of Defendants’ purported ownership rights in the Mice and in breach of

its Grant Work obligations to Defendants. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends

that it possesses, under both the Project Agreements and in equity, the right to

insist on payment of housing and related charges before delivering the Mice, and

that its proceeding with the Grant Work is neither a breach of contract nor a

violation of any ownership or other right of Defendants. 

Id. ¶ 16. 

On July 5, 2006, AGX removed the action to this Court. On August 1, 2006, AGX filed

an amended answer and counterclaim, asserting breach of contract by CBI and seeking

declaratory relief on its own behalf. On September 29, 2006, CBI answered the amended

counterclaim. On October 27, 2006, AGX moved for a preliminary injunction ordering CBI to

return the breeding pairs of AGX’s proprietary mice. CBI opposes the motion. The Court heard

Case 5:06-cv-04152-JF Document 23 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 06-04152 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

oral argument on December 22, 2006.

II. DISCUSSION

AGX states in its papers and represented at oral argument that the recovery of three pairs

of breeding mice from CBI is crucial to its continued business and its pursuit of cancer

treatments. CBI represented at oral argument that it would be willing to transfer possession of

the mice to AGX if AGX were to deposit the sum of $233,287.72, the amount contested in this

litigation, with the Court.

AGX represented at oral argument that it could provide the amount of $233,287.72 in the

form of a bond. The Court concludes that the submission of appropriate security to the Court,

with CBI possessing a right to review the security, is an appropriate resolution to the instant

motion. The Court reaches this conclusion without prejudice to any of the legal arguments in the

underlying legal action. CBI shall not be responsible under this order for shipping the mice to

AGX, although the Court reaches no conclusion regarding any underlying dispute about the

parties’ respective obligations or rights to pay for transportation costs. 

III. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. AGX shall submit security to the Court in the form of a bond or other comparable

instrument in the amount of $233,287.72 on or before January 12, 2007. AGX shall

provide CBI with notice of the details of such security.

2. CBI shall file any objection to the form or adequacy of the security within five (5) days

after receiving notice thereof.

3. In the event that CBI does not object to the form or adequacy of the security, CBI shall

take all reasonable steps to allow AGX to obtain the three breeding pairs from CBI on or

before January 26, 2007, or a later date more suitable to AGX. 

Case 5:06-cv-04152-JF Document 23 Filed 12/22/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 06-04152 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

DATED: December 22, 2006.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04152-JF Document 23 Filed 12/22/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C 06-04152 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Suzanne Yoshiye Nishika Bonotto sbonotto@hopkinscarley.com,

kmadrid@hopkinscarley.com 

Robert A. Christopher rchristopher@hopkinscarley.com,

ihernandez@hopkinscarley.com 

Liam J Garland lgarland@hrc-la.org 

Jack I. Siegal jsiegal@hopkinscarley.com 

Case 5:06-cv-04152-JF Document 23 Filed 12/22/06 Page 5 of 5