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 

 

COMPLAINT 

Stuart C. Plunkett (State Bar No. 187971) 

Ariel D. House (State Bar No. 280477) 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

101 California Street, Suite 3070 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 291-6200 

Facsimile: (415) 291-6300 

Paul R. Morico (pro hac vice pending) 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

One Shell Plaza 

901 Louisiana Street 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 229-1234 

Facsimile: (713) 229-1522 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case No. _____________ 

COMPLAINT 

1. Correction of Inventorship 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 256; 

2. Declaration of Patent 

Ownership; 

3. Breach of Contract; 

4. Breach of the Implied Covenant 

of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 

5. Conversion; and 

6. Constructive Trust 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, a California corporation,, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROGER JINTEH ARRIGO CHEN, an individual; 

GENIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; and DOES 1-25, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

The Regents of the University of California (the “University” or “Plaintiff”) allege as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff seeks redress for the unlawful actions of a former University of 

California, Santa Cruz (“UCSC”) research employee who violated his contractual Oath by 

failing to assign his inventions to the University and failing to disclose other patentable 

inventions. Rather, after leaving UCSC, he started his own company to commercialize the 

very technology he and others invented while at UCSC. That company, founded on 

technology rightfully owned by the University, later sold for at least $125 million.

2. Defendant Roger Jinteh Arrigo Chen (“Chen”) worked as a researcher in the 

biophysics laboratory at UCSC from approximately October 2005 until January 2008. While 

at UCSC, Chen (with other co-inventors) conceived of and developed a series of inventions 

and proprietary technologies relating to the array of individually addressable nanopores, 

which are used in characterizing a nucleic acid sequence of each of a plurality of nucleic acid 

molecules (the “UCSC Inventions”). Pursuant to the University of California’s State Oath of 

Allegiance, Patent Policy, and Patent Acknowledgement (the “Oath”), which Chen signed, 

Chen was obligated (i) to “assign inventions and patents” that he conceived or developed 

during the time he was employed by the University or utilizing the University’s research 

facilities, resources, or funds, and (ii) to “promptly report and fully disclose the conception 

and/or reduction to practice of potentially patentable inventions” to the University so that the 

University could “determine [its] rights and equities therein.” Under the Oath, Chen also 

agreed to “execute any documents and do all things necessary . . . to assign to [the] 

University all rights, title, and interest therein and to assist [the] University in securing patent 

or analogous protection thereon.” 

3. Relying on the Oath—which is made by thousands of University researchers 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

2 

across California—the University has filed a number of patent applications (the “University 

Patent Applications”) based on the UCSC Inventions with the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (“USPTO”), each of which identifies Chen as an inventor. Chen has 

evaded all requests by the University to fulfill his obligations under the Oath to execute 

assignments and declarations regarding the University Patent Applications.

4. Rather than comply with his Oath, Chen co-founded Genia Technologies, Inc. 

(“Genia”) to profit using the technology he and others developed at UCSC. Genia describes 

itself as a “nanopore based sequencing company,” and its business model is directly based on 

the UCSC Inventions. 

5. Chen also violated his Oath by seeking patent protection for inventions 

conceived at the University and assigning those patent rights to Genia. Genia now holds a 

number of patents (and pending patent applications) derived from the UCSC Inventions that 

identify Chen as one of only two co-inventors (the “Genia Patents”). Chen never disclosed 

the filing of any of the Genia Patents to the University. The subject matter of the Genia 

Patents, and the claims and inventions disclosed therein, were conceived of and developed by 

Chen during his employment with the University, and thus Chen was obligated under the 

Oath to disclose those inventions to the University so the University could seek appropriate 

patent protections. 

6. Upon information and belief, Chen was generously compensated for 

disclosing the highly valuable UCSC Inventions to Genia. The Genia Patents, and the 

underlying UCSC Inventions from which they are derived, rightfully belong to the 

University. 

7. Genia was recently acquired by one of the largest health care companies in the 

world for more than $125 million. A significant portion of the acquisition payment to 

acquire Genia is attributable to the Genia Patents, which are one of Genia’s most valuable 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

3 

assets. That money should have been paid to the University, the true owner of the Genia 

Patents. Those funds should be disgorged from Genia and returned to the University. 

Additionally, upon information and belief, Chen received a significant portion of the 

acquisition payment, which should also be disgorged from Chen and returned to the 

University. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. The University alleges certain claims arising under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has original and exclusive 

jurisdiction over certain claims alleged herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and 

2201, and 35 U.S.C. § 256. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this 

District. 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

10. Under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), this Intellectual Property Action should be 

assigned on a district-wide basis. 

THE PARTIES 

11. Plaintiff The Regents of the University of California is a California 

corporation with statewide administrative offices located at 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland, 

California, 94607-5200. The University is the governing board chartered by Article 9, 

Section 9, of the California Constitution to administer and control the University of 

California system, including the University of California, Santa Cruz (“UCSC”). UCSC is a 

public research university located in Santa Cruz County, California. The University has been 

granted the authority to bring lawsuits on behalf of UCSC. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

4 

12. On information and belief, Defendant Roger Jinteh Arrigo Chen is an 

individual who resides in Santa Clara County, California. 

13. On information and belief, Defendant Genia Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

I. The Oath. 

14. After obtaining a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1991, Chen worked for ten years as an engineer at 

Maxim Integrated Products, a multi-billion dollar technology company located in San Jose, 

California. 

15. From October 2005 until January 2008, Chen attended graduate school at 

UCSC. Chen was originally enrolled in the Ph.D. program, but pursued a Master’s degree 

instead. Chen obtained an M.S. degree in Biochemistry in January 2008. 

16. While at UCSC, Chen was employed as a researcher in the biophysics 

laboratory (the “UCSC Laboratory”) of world-renowned DNA nanopore sequence scientist 

Mark Akeson (“Akeson”). As a condition of his employment in the UCSC Laboratory, Chen 

was required to sign the University of California’s State Oath of Allegiance, Patent Policy, 

and Patent Acknowledgment. The Oath includes the following provisions: 

Patent Acknowledgment. 

This acknowledgment is made by me to The Regents of the University of 

California, a corporation, hereinafter called "University," in part consideration 

of my employment, and of wages and/or salary to be paid to me during any 

period of my employment, by University, and/or my utilization of University 

research facilities and/or my receipt of gift, grant, or contract research funds 

through the University. 

By execution of this acknowledgment, I understand that I am not waiving any 

rights to a percentage of royalty payments received by University, as set 

forth in the University of California Patent Policy, hereinafter called "Policy." 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 5 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

5 

I also understand and acknowledge that the University has the right to change 

the Policy from time to time, including the percentage of net royalties paid to 

inventors, and that the policy in effect at the time an invention is disclosed 

shall govern the University's disposition of royalties, if any, from that 

Invention. Further, I acknowledge that the percentage of net royalties paid to 

Inventors is derived only from consideration in the form of money or equity 

received under: 1) a license or bailment agreement for licensed rights, or 2) an 

option or letter agreement leading to a license or bailment agreement. I also 

acknowledge that the percent-age of net royalties paid to inventors is not 

derived from research funds or from any other consideration of any kind 

received by the University. The Policy on Accepting Equity When Licensing 

University Technology governs the treatment of equity received in 

consideration for a license. 

I acknowledge my obligation to assign inventions and patents that I 

conceive or develop while employed by University or during the course of 

my utilization of any University research facilities or any connection with 

my use of gift, grant, or contract research funds received through the 

University. I further acknowledge my obligation to promptly report and 

fully disclose the conception and/or reduction to practice of potentially 

patentable inventions to the Office of Technology Transfer or authorized 

Licensing office. Such Inventions shall be examined by University to 

determine rights and equities therein in accordance with the Policy. I 

shall promptly furnish University with complete information with respect to 

each. 

In the event any such invention shall be deemed by University to be 

patentable or protectable by an analogous property right, and University 

desires, pursuant to determination by University as to its rights and 

equities therein, to seek patent or analogous protection thereon, I shall 

execute any documents and do all things necessary, at University's 

expense, to assign to University all rights, title, and interest therein and to 

assist University in securing patent or analogous protection thereon. The 

scope of this provision is limited by California Labor Code section 2870, to 

which notice is given below. In the event I protest the University's 

determination regarding any rights or interest in an invention, I acknowledge 

my obligation: (a) to proceed with any University requested assignment or 

assistance; (b) to give University notice of that protest no later than the 

execution date of any of the above-described documents or assignment; and 

(c) to reimburse University for all expenses and costs it encounters in its 

patent application attempts, if any such protest is subsequently sustained or 

agreed to. 

I acknowledge that I am bound to do all things necessary to enable University 

to perform its obligations to grantors of funds for research or contracting 

agencies as said obligations have been undertaken by University. 

University may relinquish to me all or a part of its right to any such invention, 

if, in its judgment, the criteria set forth in the Policy have been met. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 6 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

6 

I acknowledge that I am bound during any periods of employment by 

University or for any period during which I conceive or develop any invention 

during the course of my utilization of any University research facilities, or any 

gift, grant, or contract research funds received through the University. 

In signing this agreement I understand that the law, of which notification is 

given below, applies to me, and that I am still required to disclose all my 

inventions to the University. 

17. In summary, the Oath provides that: 

a. Chen has an “obligation to assign inventions and patents” that he 

conceived or developed during the time he was employed by the University or 

utilizing the University’s research facilities, resources, or funds; 

b. Chen has an “obligation to promptly report and fully disclose the 

conception and/or reduction to practice of potentially patentable inventions” to the 

University so that the University could “determine [its] rights and equities therein”; 

c. If the University determined any such invention was patentable, the 

Oath further requires Chen to “execute any documents and do all things necessary . . . 

to assign to [the University] all rights, title, and interest therein and to assist [the 

University] in securing patent or analogous protection thereon”; and 

d. The University would provide Chen with a percentage of any royalty 

payments that the University obtained based on licensing Chen’s patented inventions. 

18. Chen executed the Oath on September 15, 2005, a true and correct copy of 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

II. Chen’s Scientific Inventions During His Employment with the University. 

19. Chen’s research at UCSC was in the field of nanopore sequencing. Nanopore 

sequencing refers to a method of “sequencing” DNA, which is the process for determining 

the precise order of nucleotides within a DNA molecule. A nanopore is a very small hole 

with an internal diameter on the order of one nanometer (one billionth of a meter). The 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 7 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

7 

theory behind nanopore sequencing is that when a nanopore is immersed in a conducting 

fluid and a potential voltage is applied across it, an electric current due to conduction of ions 

through the nanopore can be observed, and the magnitude of the current may indicate when 

strands of DNA or other molecules pass through or near the nanopore. 

20. While Chen was employed as a researcher in the UCSC Laboratory, Chen 

(along with other University co-inventors) developed a series of related inventions and 

proprietary technologies relating to the array of individually addressable nanopores, which 

are used in characterizing a nucleic acid sequence of each of a plurality of nucleic acid 

molecules (the “UCSC Inventions”). 

21. The UCSC Inventions were memorialized in a series of Disclosure and 

Record of Inventions, which identify Chen as either the sole inventor or a co-inventor. 

22. For example, Chen is listed as the sole inventor on a Disclosure and Record of 

Invention for an invention described as “Method for Manufacture of Very Large Scale 

Arrays of Independently Addressable Nanopores” (“Chen ROI No. 1”).

23. The Invention Chronology identifies a conception date of April 13, 2006, and 

a date of first written record of invention of April 2, 2007. The invention recorded in the 

Chen ROI No. 1 describes a number of inventive concepts, including by not limited to, the 

idea of manufacturing arrays of biological nanopores that can operate independently of each 

other, in a very large scale approach similar to the manufacturing methods of integrated 

circuits. This idea was first raised during discussions between Akeson and Chen at the 

UCSC and was first documented in a laboratory notebook. The Chen ROI No. 1 expressly 

indicated that the invention was detailed in a “lab notebook,” and an “[e]mail to Mark 

Akeson with PDF and TIF (sic) files of hand drawn diagrams.” Akeson witnessed Chen ROI 

No. 1 on April 11, 2007. 

24. Notably, Figures 1-3 of the Chen ROI No. 1 are essentially identical to 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 8 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

8 

Figures 9A-C, 10 and 11 of University’s U.S. Application Serial No. 12/080,684, which is 

described in further detail below. 

25. Chen is also identified as a co-inventor, along with Akeson, on a Disclosure 

and Record of Invention for an invention described as “Methods to Limit Enzyme Activity to 

One Molecule or Complex Using a Nanopore.” The Invention Chronology identifies a 

conception date of January 17, 2007, and a date of first written record of invention on the 

same date (“Chen ROI No. 2”). 

26. Additionally, Chen is identified as a co-inventor on another disclosure for an 

invention described as “Nanopore-Coupled Sequencing by Synthesis.” This disclosure was 

submitted to the University’s patent prosecution manager on May 18, 2007 (“May 18, 2007 

Invention Disclosure”). 

27. In addition to the foregoing inventions, Chen made other contributions to the 

field of nanopore sequencing during his time at UCSC. For example, Chen co-authored a 

paper entitled, “Sequence-specific detection of individual DNA polymerase complexes on real 

time using a nanopore,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 2(11): 718-724 (Nov. 2007). 

III. The University Seeks Patent Protection for the UCSC Inventions. 

28. Pursuant to its rights under the Oath, the University sought patent protection 

for the UCSC Inventions memorialized in the Chen ROI No. 1, the Chen ROI No. 2, and the 

May 18, 2007 Invention Disclosure, by filing a series of related patent applications, which 

are identified in the chart below. Each of the University’s patent applications listed below is 

based on the UCSC Inventions and identifies Chen as an inventor. 

Active University Patent Applications 

Filing Date U.S. Provisional 

Patent Application 

Serial No. 

Description of Invention Inventors 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 9 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

9 

October 17, 

20131

14/056,636 “Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods for 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

William B. Dunbar, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen, and Noah A. 

Wilson 

June 10, 20142 14/300,453 “Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods for 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

William B. Dunbar, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen, and Noah A. 

Wilson 

October 21, 

20153 

14/919,315 “Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods for 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

William B. Dunbar, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen, and Noah A. 

Wilson 

March 31, 20164 15/087,734 “Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods for 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

William B. Dunbar, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen, and Noah A. 

 

1 U.S. Application Serial No. 14/056,636 is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

13/615,183, filed on September 13, 2012, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

12/080,684 filed on April 4, 2008, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Serial. No. 

60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539 and Serial No. 61/062,391. 

2 U.S. Application Serial No. 14/300,453 is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/056,636 filed on October 17, 2013, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

13/615,183 filed on September 13, 2012, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

12/080,684 filed on April 4, 2008, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 

60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539, and Serial No. 61/062,391. 

3 U.S. Application Serial No. 14/919,315 is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/300,453 filed June 10, 2014, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 14/056,636 

filed October 17, 2013, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 13/615,183 filed 

September 13, 2012, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 12/080,684 filed April 

4, 2008, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, 

Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539, and Serial No. 61/062,391. 

4 U.S. Application Serial No. 15/087,734 is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/919,315, filed October 21, 2015, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/300,453 filed June 10, 2014, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 14/056,636 

filed October 17, 2013, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 13/615,183 filed 

September 13, 2012, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 12/080,684 filed April 

8, 2008, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, 

Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539, and Serial No. 61/062,391. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 10 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

10 

Wilson 

May 23, 20165 15/162,225 “Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods for 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen 

Abandoned University Patent Applications 

Filing Date U.S. Provisional 

Patent Application 

Serial No. 

Description of Invention Inventors 

April 4, 2007 60/921,787 “Methods to limit enzyme 

activity to one molecule or 

complex using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

Seiko Benner, Roger 

Jinteh Arrigo Chen, 

May 21, 2007 60/931,115 “Methods for sequencing 

polynucleotides by 

synthesis using a nanopore” 

Robin 

Abu-Shumays, Mark 

A. Akeson, Seiko 

Benner, Roger Jinteh 

Arrigo Chen, David 

W. Deamer 

September 4, 

2007 

60/967,539 “Method for manufacture 

of very large scale arrays of 

independently addressable 

nanopores and methods for 

their use” 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen 

April 4, 20086 12/080,684 “Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods for 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen, Seiko Benner, 

William B. Dunbar, 

Noah W. Wilson, 

Kate Lieberman, 

Robin 

Abu-Shumays, and 

Nicholas Hurt 

 

5 U.S. Application Serial No. 15/162,225 is continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

15/087,734, filed March 31, 2016, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/919,315, filed October 21, 2015, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/300,453 filed June 10, 2014, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 14/056,636 

filed October 17, 2013, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Ser. No. 13/615,183 filed 

September 13, 2012, which is a continuation application of U.S. Application Serial No. 12/080,684 filed April 

4, 2008, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, 

Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539, and Serial No. 61/062,391. 

6 U.S. Application Serial No. 12/080,684 claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 

60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539, and Serial No. 61/062,391. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 11 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

11 

April 4, 20087 International PCT 

Application Serial 

No. 

PCT/US2008/0044

67 

“Compositions, devices, 

systems, and methods of 

using a nanopore” 

Mark A. Akeson, 

David W. Deamer, 

Roger Jinteh Arrigo 

Chen, Seiko Benner, 

William B. Dunbar, 

Noah W. Wilson, 

Kate Lieberman, 

Robin 

Abu-Shumays, and 

Nicholas Hurt, 

Daniel Branton 

 

IV. The Patent Rules Regarding Disclosure of Inventorship. 

29. A provisional patent application is a U.S. national application filed in the 

USPTO under 35 U.S.C. §111(b). It has a pendency period of 12 months after the filing date. 

The applicant must file a corresponding nonprovisional patent application during the 12-

month pendency period of the provisional application in order to benefit from the earlier 

filing of the provisional application. Unlike the nonprovisional patent application, the 

provisional patent application is unique in that it is not required to have a formal patent claim 

or an Inventor’s Oath or Declaration. Nor is it required to have any claims. 

30. The Rules of Practice in Patent Cases (the “Patent Rules”), 37 C.F.R. § 1.63, 

require that each inventor or co-inventor of a claimed invention must execute an oath or 

declaration directed to the patent application, which identifies the inventor and the 

application to which the oath or declaration is directed, and explains whether the person 

executing the oath or declaration believes himself or herself to be the original inventor (the 

“Inventor’s Oath or Declaration”). 

31. The Patent Rules also provide that in the event the inventor refuses to execute 

the Inventor’s Oath or Declaration, the patent applicant may execute a substitute statement 

 

7 International PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/004467 claims priority from U.S. Provisional 

Application Serial No. 60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, Serial No. 60/962,530, Serial No. 60/967,539, and 

Serial No. 61/062,391. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 12 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

12 

(the “Substitute Statement”) which must: 

a. Comply with the requirements of § 1.63(a), identifying the inventor or 

joint inventor with respect to whom a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or 

declaration is executed, and stating upon information and belief the facts which such 

inventor is required to state; 

b. Identify the person executing the substitute statement and the 

relationship of such person to the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom the 

substitute statement is executed, and, unless such information is supplied in an 

application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, the residence and mailing address of 

the person signing the substitute statement; 

c. Identify the circumstances permitting the person to execute the 

substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under § 1.63, namely whether the 

inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a 

diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 

1.63; and 

d. Unless the following information is supplied in an application data 

sheet in accordance with § 1.76, also identify: 

i. Each inventor by his or her legal name; and 

ii. The last known mailing address where the inventor customarily 

receives mail, and last known residence, if an inventor lives at a 

location which is different from where the inventor customarily 

receives mail, for each inventor who is not deceased or under a legal 

incapacity. 

37 C.F.R. § 1.64. 

32. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.51, a patent application is not complete without the 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 13 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

13 

Inventor’s Oath or Declaration or the Substitute Statement, and the failure to include these 

required documents constitutes grounds for rejection of the patent application. 

V. The University’s Early Efforts to Obtain Patent Protection for the UCSC 

Inventions. 

33. The University has pursued many patent applications relating to the UCSC 

Inventions over the past nine years, including two new applications which were filed just a 

few months ago. 

34. As early as April 4, 2007, while Chen was still employed at the UCSC 

Laboratory, the University filed U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/921,787, entitled 

“Methods to limit enzyme activity to one molecule or complex using a nanopore,” which 

identified Chen, Akeson, and Seiko Benner as inventors. On May 21, 2007, the University 

also filed U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/931,115, entitled “Methods for 

sequencing polynucleotides by synthesis using a nanopore,” which identified inventors of 

Chen, Akeson, Robin Abu-Shumays, Seiko Benner, and David W. Deamer. Just a few 

months later, on September 4, 2007, the University filed U.S. Provisional Application Serial 

No. 60/967,539, entitled “Method for manufacture of very large scale arrays of 

independently addressable nanopores and methods for their use,” which identified Chen as 

the sole inventor. 

35. Shortly after Chen left UCSC in January 2008, the University filed two 

additional provisional applications. On April 4, 2008, the University filed U.S. Application 

Serial No. 12/080,684, entitled “Compositions, devices, systems, and methods for using a 

nanopore,” by Chen, Akeson, David W. Deamer, Seiko Benner, William B. Dunbar, Noah 

Wilson, Kate Lieberman, Robin Abu-Shumays, and Nicholas Hurt. The same day, the 

University also filed U.S. PCT Application Serial No.: PCT/US2008/004467, entitled 

“Compositions, devices, systems, and methods for using a nanopore,” by the inventors 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 14 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

14 

named in the other April 4, 2008 filing with the addition of Daniel Branton. On October 2, 

2009, the University filed U.S. Application serial No. 12/450,633, entitled “Compositions, 

devices, systems, and methods for using a nanopore,” by Akeson, David W. Deamer, 

William B. Dunbar, Noah A. Wilson, and Kate Lieberman. 

36. On multiple occasions beginning in early 2009, the University asked Chen to 

execute a declaration pertaining to the University’s U.S. Application Serial No. 12/080,684, 

and International Patent Application Serial No. PCT/ US2008/004467 (which was assigned 

Serial No. 12/450,633 when it entered the U.S. National Phase of the International 

Application). 

37. During the time period of approximately 2009-2010, Chen either failed to 

respond or was evasive when the University asked him to sign declarations regarding those 

applications. On one occasion, in connection with an Abandoned University Patent 

Application, Chen responded to the University’s requests verbally during a telephone 

conversation with the University’s outside counsel, Matthew Kaser, indicating that he would 

not sign a declaration in connection with that application “at that time.” During this time 

period, Chen never stated or otherwise indicated that he would not abide by his obligations 

under the Oath in connection with future applications, including specifically any of the 

Active University Patent Applications. 

38. The University proceeded with seeking patent protection for the UCSC 

Inventions. However, because the University had not successfully obtained a declaration 

from Chen, several of these patent applications were denied for incompleteness. 

39. The University later learned that during this time, Chen was launching his 

new company. Genia was officially founded in March 2009. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 15 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

15 

VI. Chen Evades the University’s Requests to Execute Patent Assignments and 

Declarations Relating to the University Patent Applications. 

40. On October 17, 2013, the University filed U.S. Application Serial No. 

14/056,636, entitled “Compositions, devices, systems, and methods for using a nanopore,” by 

Chen, Akeson, David W. Deamer, William B. Dunbar, and Noah Wilson. 

41. On January 14, 2014, the University asked Chen to execute an Inventor’s Oath 

or Declaration as to the recently-filed Patent Application Serial No. 14/056,636. For the first 

time, the University also asked Chen to execute Assignments as to the six previously filed 

University Patent Applications listed above: Serial No. 60/921,787, Serial No. 60/931,115, 

Serial No. 60/967,539, Serial No. 12/080,684, Serial No. 14/056,636, and Serial No. 

PCT/US2008/004467. 

42. Chen did not refuse the University’s requests. Instead, approximately one 

week later, on January 22, 2014, Chen responded to the University’s request and asked for a 

copy of the claims for the then active University Patent Applications. The University 

promptly complied with Chen’s request and sent him those applications, along with a copy of 

the declaration and assignment, and an email acknowledging “[t]he cases are all based on 

your work at UCSC.” When Chen failed to respond, the University sent another letter to 

Chen on March 4, 2014, repeating its earlier requests. 

43. The University received a letter from Chen, dated March 5, 2014, in which 

Chen stated: “I do not believe I contributed to material in the claims in this application. 

Thus, I do not believe I am an inventor on this application.” Chen advised the University to 

review his written materials from his time at the UCSC Laboratory. 

44. The University was unable to locate Chen’s written materials, including his 

laboratory notebooks, from the UCSC Laboratory. Upon information and belief, Chen failed 

to return those materials to the University, even though he was required to do so per the 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 16 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

16 

terms of his employment and University policy, which provides that “[n]otebooks and other 

original records of the research [of University researchers] are the property of the 

University.” A true and correct copy of the University’s policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 

B. 

45. On June 10, 2014, shortly after learning of the Genia Patents, the University 

filed U.S. Application Serial No. 14/300,453 (the “’453 Application”). The ‘453 Application 

contains claims copied from U.S. Patent No. 8,461,854, assigned to Genia. The true 

inventors of that claimed subject matter include Mark Akeson, two other University facultyinventors, David Deamer and William Dunbar, Noah Wilson, another former University 

researcher, and, on information and belief, Chen. On August 18, 2014, the University 

requested that Chen clarify whether he would execute inventors’ declarations and 

assignments to Patent Application Serial No. 14/056,636 and Serial No. 14/300,453. The 

University also requested that Chen provide a copy of his written materials. The University 

indicated that if Chen failed to respond, they would conclude that he refused to sign, and 

would file a statement under 35 U.S.C. § 115(d) indicating that Chen had refused to sign the 

declarations and assignments to the University per his obligation under the Oath. 

46. Again, Chen did not refuse the University’s requests. Instead, Chen hired the 

law firm of Wilmer Hale to respond to the University’s requests. In September 2015, the 

University received a letter from Chen’s counsel requesting additional information regarding 

the University’s factual and legal basis for believing that Chen was an inventor, and 

documentation evidencing Chen’s obligation to assign patent rights to the University. 

47. In the University’s written response dated September 30, 2014, the University 

stated that Chen was an employee of the University at the time the UCSC Inventions were 

made and that Chen had signed the Oath, signed and transmitted two confidential Records of 

Invention to the UCSC Technology Transfer Office during his employment, participated in 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 17 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

17 

research projects regarding nanopore sequencing, and co-authored a paper regarding this 

topic. The University also stated that the relevant provisional patent applications were filed 

during Chen’s employment with UCSC and had identified Chen as an inventor. 

48. Chen repeated these evasive tactics over the next several months. Each time 

the University requested that Chen sign a declaration and assignment, Chen stonewalled by 

requesting more information and advancing various excuses as to why he had not executed 

the requested documents. For example, in a February 2016 letter, Chen, through his 

attorneys, carefully avoided saying that he was refusing to sign the documents required by 

the Oath, instead contending that he would not sign documents that “falsely purport to name 

him as an inventor of the subject matter claimed in such applications as of the claimed 

priority date.” He repeated that position, again through his attorneys, in a May 2016 letter. 

49. During the same time period that Chen was requesting information from the 

University and making statements suggesting that he might sign the required documents, he 

was filing patent applications for Genia that contained the UCSC Inventions. Furthermore, 

Chen never disclosed to the University that he had filed the Genia Patents. 

50. To date, Chen has failed to execute any declarations or assignments relating to 

the University Patent Applications. 

VII. Chen Uses the UCSC Inventions to Found a New Company, Genia. 

51. As indicated above, while Chen stonewalled the University’s efforts to protect 

its intellectual property, he was simultaneously covertly seeking to patent the same 

technology he helped invent at the University. Approximately one year after Chen left 

UCSC, in March 2009, Chen co-founded Genia Technologies, Inc. Chen currently serves on 

Genia’s Management Team as the Chief Technical Officer. According to its website, Genia 

is “a nanopore based sequencing company.” 

52. Genia’s business model is directly based on the UCSC Inventions that Chen 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 18 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

18 

conceived and developed, either individually or jointly, during his time at UCSC. In fact, a 

number of patent applications and issued patents assigned to Genia, which identify Chen as 

one of only two co-inventors, are derived from the UCSC Inventions (the “Genia Patents”). 

The subject matter of the Genia Patents, and the claims and inventions disclosed therein, 

were conceived and developed by Chen (and his co-inventors) during his employment with 

the University. Specifically, the Genia Patents include claims derived from, and finding 

support in, the common specification found in UCSC Application Serial No. 14/300,453, 

Serial No. 14/919,315, and Serial No. 15/087,734, which not only share a common 

specification but also claim priority dates earlier than the priority dates of the Genia Patents. 

Each of the Genia Patents listed below is based on the UCSC Inventions and identifies Chen 

as one of two co-inventors. At no time did Chen ever disclose any of the Genia Patents to the 

University. 

Genia’s Patent Applications and Issued Patents 

Filing 

Date 

U.S. 

Provisional 

Patent 

Application 

Serial No. 

Issue Date U.S. 

Patent 

No. 

Description of 

Invention 

Inventors 

February 

8, 2010 

12/658,604 December 

4, 2012 

8,324,914 “Systems and 

methods for 

characterizing 

a molecule” 

Roger Jinteh 

Arrigo Chen, 

Randy Davis 

September 

15, 2012 

13/620,973 June 11, 

2013 

8,461,854 “Systems and 

methods for 

characterizing 

a molecule” 

Roger Jinteh 

Arrigo Chen, 

Randy Davis 

May 13, 

2013 

13/893,142 May 26, 

2015 

9,041,420 “Systems and 

methods for 

characterizing 

a molecule” 

Roger Jinteh 

Arrigo Chen, 

Randy Davis 

October 

14, 2014 

14/513,642 June 28, 

2016 

9,377,437 “Systems and 

methods for 

characterizing 

a molecule” 

Roger Jinteh 

Arrigo Chen, 

Randy Davis 

March 24, 15/079,322 n/a n/a “Systems and Roger Jinteh 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 19 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

19 

2016 methods for 

characterizing 

a molecule” 

Arrigo Chen, 

Randy Davis 

53. Upon information and belief, Chen was generously compensated for 

disclosing the highly valuable UCSC Inventions to Genia. As noted above, pursuant to the 

Oath, the University was required to share a percentage of any royalties derived from the 

UCSC Inventions with Chen. Evidently, Chen decided that a share of the royalties was not 

sufficient. Instead, Chen stole the UCSC Inventions from the University and sold them to 

Genia for his exclusive profit. Chen at all times hid these actions from the University. 

54. Both the Genia Patents and the underlying UCSC Inventions from which they 

are derived rightfully belong to the University. 

VIII. Roche Pays More than $125 Million to Acquire Genia. 

55. Roche is one of the largest health care companies in the world, with annual 

revenue of approximately $48 billion USD and more than 90,000 employees worldwide. In 

June of 2014, Roche agreed to acquire Genia. According to Roche’s press release regarding 

the acquisition, Roche agreed to pay Genia’s shareholders $125 million in cash, plus another 

$225 million in contingent payments depending on the achievement of certain milestones 

(the “Acquisition Payment”). 

56. Upon information and belief, a significant portion of the Acquisition Payment 

is attributable to the value of the Genia Patents, which are one of Genia’s most valuable 

assets. The University anticipates that this amount will be revealed during discovery. Genia 

wrongfully received this portion of the Acquisition Payment, which it currently holds in a 

constructive trust on behalf of the University, and should be disgorged and returned to the 

true owner, the University. 

57. Upon information and belief, Chen personally received a substantial portion 

of the Acquisition Payment, primarily due to Chen’s critical role as the co-inventor on the 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 20 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

20 

Genia Patents. Chen wrongfully received this portion of the Acquisition Payment, and his 

share of the Acquisition Payment is also held in a constructive trust on behalf of the 

University, which should be disgorged and returned to the true owner, the University. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

First Claim for Relief

Correction of Inventorship Under 35 U.S.C. § 256 

(Against Chen and Genia)

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 

59. Chen has denied his involvement in conceiving and developing contributions 

to the UCSC Inventions. 

60. Based in part on Chen’s denial that he is an inventor, Chen failed to sign 

assignments and declarations transferring his right, title, and interest in and to the UCSC 

Inventions to the University, as he was and is obligated to do according to his agreement to 

the Oath. 

61. The true inventors of the UCSC Inventions are disclosed in the University 

Patent Applications. 

62. The Genia Patents identify Chen and Randy Davis as inventors. However, 

Davis is not and cannot be an inventor of the Genia Patents. The subject matter of the Genia 

Patents, and the claims and inventions disclosed therein, were developed by the University 

during Chen’s employment with the University. Thus, the true inventors of the Genia Patents 

are: Akeson, David W. Deamer, William B. Dunbar, Noah A. Wilson, and, on information 

and belief, Chen. 

63. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 35 U.S.C. § 256, the University seeks 

correction of the inventorship of the Genia Patents by removing at least Randy Davis and by 

adding inventors Mark A. Akeson, David W. Deamer, William B. Dunbar, and Noah A. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 21 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

21 

Wilson. 

Second Claim for Relief 

Declaration of Patent Ownership 

(Against Chen and Genia)

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 

65. Upon leaving the University and joining Genia, Chen secretly started filing a 

number of patent applications relating to his work at the University. More specifically, he 

filed patent applications while at Genia, which incorporated UCSC Inventions that he and 

others conceived and developed while he was at the University, including but not limited to, 

inventions relating to the manufacture of large scale arrays of biological nanopores that can 

operate independently of each other for use in sequencing DNA molecules. A number of 

these patent applications containing UCSC Inventions have been granted into issued patents. 

Chen assigned these applications and patents containing UCSC Inventions to Genia. These 

applications and patents (further defined above) are referred to generally as the Genia 

Patents. 

66. The Genia Patents include, but are not limited to: 

a. U.S. Serial No. 12/658,604, filed February 8, 2010 (now U.S. Patent 

No. 8,324,914); 

b. U.S. Serial No. 13/620,973, filed September 15, 2012 (now U.S. 

Patent No. 8,461,854); 

c. U.S. Serial No. 13/893,142, filed May 13, 2013 (now U.S. Patent No. 

9,041,420); 

d. U.S. Serial No. 14/513,642, filed October 14, 2014 (now U.S. Patent 

No. 9,377,437); and 

e. U.S. Serial No. 15/079,322, filed March 24, 2016. 

67. Chen failed to disclose to the University that he assigned his rights to the 

UCSC Inventions to Genia. Genia improperly claims to be the true owner of the UCSC 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 22 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

22 

Inventions, and the Genia Patents constitute an improper and unauthorized assignment of the 

University’s interest in and ownership of the UCSC Inventions to Genia. 

68. A controversy presently exists between the University and Genia as to who is 

the proper owner of the Genia Patents. 

69. Pursuant to the terms of the Oath, the University is entitled to a declaration 

that the University is the true and lawful owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to 

the Genia Patents, or in the alternative, to an order reassigning all rights in the Genia Patents 

to the University. Furthermore, the University is entitled to a declaration that all rights in the 

Genia Patents granted to parties other than the University are null and void. 

Third Claim for Relief 

Breach of Contract 

(Against Chen) 

70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 

71. On September 15, 2005, the University and Chen entered into the Oath—a 

valid, binding, and enforceable written agreement. Chen’s execution of the Oath was one of 

the terms and conditions of his employment with the UCSC Laboratory. 

72. The Oath provides that Chen had an “obligation to assign inventions and 

patents” that he conceived or developed during the time he was employed by University or 

utilizing University’s research facilities, resources, or funds; Chen had an “obligation to 

promptly report and fully disclose the conception and/or reduction to practice of potentially 

patentable inventions” to the University so that the University could “determine [its] rights 

and equities therein”; and if the University determined any such invention was patentable, the 

Oath further required Chen to “execute any documents and do all things necessary . . . to 

assign to [the] University all rights, title, and interest therein and to assist [the] University in 

securing patent or analogous protection thereon.” 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 23 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

23 

73. At all times relevant herein, Chen knew of his obligation to execute any and 

all assignments and declarations for any inventions that he conceived or developed while 

employed by the University, and to fully cooperate with the University’s efforts to secure 

patent protection for any such inventions. 

74. At all times relevant herein, the University has performed all of its obligations 

under the Oath. 

75. On several occasions in 2009 and 2010, the University asked Chen to sign 

declarations regarding some of the Abandoned University Patent Applications, but Chen 

failed to respond. On one occasion, in connection with one of the Abandoned University 

Patent Applications, Chen responded to the University’s requests verbally during a telephone 

conversation with the University’s outside counsel, Matthew Kaser, indicating that he would 

not sign a declaration in connection with that application “at that time.” During this time 

period, Chen never stated or otherwise indicated that he would not abide by his obligations 

under the Oath in connection with future applications, including specifically any of the 

Active University Patent Applications. 

76. In January 2014, the University asked Chen to sign a declaration regarding its 

recently-filed Patent Application Serial No. 14/056,636, which was filed on October 17, 

2013. Additionally, for the first time, the University asked to execute assignments as to the 

previously-filed University Patent Applications which identify Chen as an inventor, 

identified as Serial No. 60/921,787, filed on April 4, 2007; Serial No. 60/931,115, filed on 

May 21, 2007; Serial No. 60/967,539, filed on September 4, 2007; Serial No. 12/080,684, 

filed on April 8, 2004; PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2008/004467, filed on April 8, 

2004; and Serial No. 12/450,633, filed on October 2, 2009. The University also asked that 

Chen sign an assignment as to the recently-filed Patent Application Serial No. 14/056,636. 

77. In March 2014, for the first time, Chen stated that he did not believe he was an 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 24 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

24 

inventor of the claims in those patent applications. On several occasions over the next two 

years, Chen (through the counsel that he retained) requested additional information from the 

University regarding the University Patent Applications and made statements suggesting that 

he might sign the declarations and assignments. In February 2016, Chen (through his 

counsel) stated that he had concluded he was not an inventor of the University Patent 

Applications, but still carefully avoided saying that he was refusing to sign the documents. 

Despite his characterization otherwise, Chen’s response as of that time, February 2016, was a 

de facto refusal to comply with his obligations under the Oath. 

78. Chen has materially breached the Oath by, among other wrongful actions: 

a. Failing to execute the assignments and declarations regarding the 

UCSC Inventions when requested to do so by the University; 

b. Failing to assign his rights and interest in the UCSC Inventions to the 

University; and 

c. Failing to notify the University of, and improperly using the UCSC 

Inventions, which rightfully belong to the University, to pursue patent 

applications and issued patents which were subsequently assigned to 

his new company, Genia. 

79. Chen’s failure to perform his duties and obligations under the Oath constitutes 

a material breach thereof. 

80. By his wrongful action of assigning his rights in the UCSC Inventions to 

Genia, both Chen and Genia have profited from and been unjustly enriched by the UCSC 

Inventions, which rightfully belong to the University. Any compensation received by Chen 

from Genia (and from Genia’s acquirer, Roche) relating to the UCSC Inventions and the 

Genia Patents should be disgorged and returned to the University. 

81. By reason of Chen’s breaches of the Oath, the University is entitled to all 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 25 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

25 

necessary relief to establish that the University is the true and lawful owner of the entire 

right, title, and interest in and to the Active University Patent Applications, including a 

declaration of such rights, a further declaration that Chen has waived any rights he has as an 

inventor of the Active University Patent Applications and related UCSC Inventions, and 

specific performance of any of Chen’s obligations under the Oath necessary to effectuate the 

University’s ownership of the inventions. With respect to the request for specific 

performance of Chen’s obligations under the Oath, the University lacks an adequate remedy 

at law. 

82. By reason of Chen’s breaches of the Oath, the University has suffered 

damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

83. Additionally, Chen’s share of the Acquisition Payment was wrongfully 

acquired due to his breaches of the Oath and his duties to the University. Chen currently 

holds his share of the Acquisition Payment in a constructive trust on behalf of the University, 

which should be disgorged and returned to the true owner, the University. 

Fourth Claim for Relief 

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 

(Against Chen) 

84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 

85. Every contract entered into in the State of California contains an implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, whereby the parties to the contract agree not to do 

anything that will deprive the other party of the benefit of that agreement. 

86. The Oath, like all contracts, contained an implied promise of good faith and 

fair dealing. 

87. Chen breached the implied covenant and deprived the University of the 

benefits of the Oath by, among other wrongful actions: 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 26 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

26 

a. Failing to execute the assignments and declarations regarding the 

UCSC Inventions when requested to do so by the University; 

b. Failing to assign his rights and interest in the UCSC Inventions to the 

University; and 

c. Failing to notify the University of, and improperly using the UCSC 

Inventions, which rightfully belong to the University, to pursue patent 

applications and issued patents which were subsequently assigned to 

his new company, Genia. 

88. By reason of Chen’s breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing, the University has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

Fifth Claim for Relief 

Conversion 

(Against Chen and Genia) 

89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 

90. Chen’s conduct described herein constitutes conversion under California law, 

and Genia has aided and abetted Chen’s conversion by offering substantial assistance and 

acting with knowledge of Chen’s conversion. 

91. Pursuant to the terms of the Oath, University policy and associated terms of 

Chen’s employment with the University, the University owns the UCSC Inventions, the 

inventions in the Genia Patents that are based on the inventions of Chen and others during 

Chen’s time at UCSC, and Chen’s written materials, including his laboratory notebooks, 

from the UCSC Laboratory. 

92. Chen intentionally and substantially interfered with the University’s 

ownership of the foregoing property by, among other wrongful actions: 

a. Failing to execute the assignments and declarations regarding the 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 27 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

27 

UCSC Inventions when requested to do so by the University; 

b. Failing to assign his rights and interest in the UCSC Inventions to the 

University; 

c. Failing to notify the University of, and improperly using the UCSC 

Inventions, which rightfully belong to the University, to pursue patent 

applications and issued patents which were subsequently assigned to 

his new company, Genia; and 

d. Failing to return to the University and/or destroying his written 

materials from the UCSC Laboratory, including his laboratory 

notebooks, in violation of the terms and conditions of his employment. 

93. Genia has aided and abetted Chen’s acts of conversion by, among other 

things, pursuing patent applications and patent rights in the UCSC Inventions, accepting 

Chen’s assignment of patent applications and patent rights in the UCSC Inventions to Genia, 

and failing to return those patent applications and rights in the UCSC Inventions to the 

rightful owner, the University. Genia’s actions constitute substantial assistance to Chen’s 

acts of conversion. 

94. Chen is one of the co-founders of Genia. At all times relevant hereto, Genia 

had knowledge of Chen’s obligations to assign his rights and interests in the UCSC 

Inventions to the University, Chen’s breaches of the Oath, Chen’s failure to execute 

assignments and declarations regarding the UCSC Inventions, and Chen and Genia’s failure 

to notify the University of, and improper use of the UCSC Inventions, to pursue patent 

applications which were subsequently assigned to Genia. 

95. The University did not consent to any of the foregoing wrongful actions by 

Chen and Genia. 

96. A significant portion of the $125 million Acquisition Payment that Genia 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 28 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

28 

received from Roche is attributable to the value of the Genia Patents, and those funds 

properly belong to the University. Genia wrongfully received the Acquisition Payment, 

which it currently holds in a constructive trust on behalf of the University, and should be 

disgorged and returned to the University. Upon information and belief, Chen personally 

received a substantial portion of the Acquisition Payment, and his share of the Acquisition 

Payment is also held in a constructive trust on behalf of the University, which should be 

disgorged and returned to the University. 

97. Chen’s and Genia’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm to 

Plaintiff. 

Sixth Claim for Relief 

Constructive Trust 

(Against Chen and Genia) 

98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 

99. Pursuant to the terms of the Oath, University policy and associated terms of 

Chen’s employment with the University, the University is the rightful owner of the UCSC 

Inventions and the Genia Patents. 

100. Genia acquired the Genia Patents by means of Chen’s wrongful actions to 

which it provided substantial assistance; namely, Chen’s breaches of his obligations under 

the Oath, Chen’s failure to execute assignments and declarations regarding the UCSC 

Inventions to the University, Chen and Genia’s failure to notify the University of, and 

improper use of the UCSC Inventions, to pursue patent applications which were subsequently 

assigned to Genia, and Chen and Genia’s improper conversion of the UCSC Inventions. 

101. At all times relevant hereto, Genia had knowledge of Chen’s obligations to 

assign his rights and interests in the UCSC Inventions to the University, Chen’s breaches of 

his obligations under the Oath, Chen’s failure to execute assignments and declarations 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 29 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

29 

regarding the UCSC Inventions to the University, and Chen and Genia’s failure to notify the 

University of, and improper use of the UCSC Inventions, to pursue patent applications which 

were subsequently assigned to Genia. 

102. Roche agreed to pay Genia’s shareholders $125 million in cash, plus another 

$225 million in contingent payments depending on the achievement of certain milestones 

(the “Acquisition Payment”). A significant portion of the Acquisition Payment is attributable 

to the value of the Genia Patents, which are one of Genia’s most valuable assets. 

103. By Chen’s wrongful actions described herein, and Genia’s substantial 

assistance thereto, both Chen and Genia have profited from and been unjustly enriched by the 

UCSC Inventions and the Genia Patents, which rightfully belong to the University. Chen and 

Genia have further been unjustly enriched by Roche’s acquisition of Genia. 

104. Chen and Genia currently hold the Genia Patents and any portion of the 

Acquisition Payment relating to the UCSC Inventions and the Genia Patents in a constructive 

trust on behalf of the true owner, the University. 

105. Chen and Genia are not entitled to the Genia Patents and any portion of the 

Acquisition Payment relating to the UCSC Inventions and the Genia Patents, and those funds 

should be disgorged and returned to the true owner, the University. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

1. That the inventorship of the Genia Patents be corrected to reflect the true 

inventors, who are disclosed in the University Patent Applications, and that Randy Davis be 

removed as an inventor of the Genia Patents. 

2. That the University shall be declared the true and lawful owner of the entire 

right, title, and interest in and to the Genia Patents, including but not limited to: 

a. U.S. Serial No. 12/658,604, filed February 8, 2010 (now U.S. Patent No. 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 30 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

30 

8,324,914); 

b. U.S. Serial No. 13/620,973, filed September 15, 2012 (now U.S. Patent No. 

8,461,854); 

c. U.S. Serial No. 13/893,142, filed May 13, 2013 (now U.S. Patent No. 

9,041,420); 

d. U.S. Serial No. 14/513,642, filed October 14, 2014 (now U.S. Patent No. 

9,377,437); and 

e. U.S. Serial No. 15/079,322, filed March 24, 2016. 

3. That Defendants Chen and Genia be ordered to assign all patent rights in the 

Genia Patents to the University; 

4. That Defendant Chen be ordered to assign any and all patent rights he may 

have in the Active University Patent Applications relating to the UCSC Inventions to the 

University, or in the alternative, that Chen be declared to have waived any rights he has as an 

inventor to the University Active Patent Applications and related UCSC Inventions; 

5. That Defendant Chen be ordered to return all of his materials from the UCSC 

Laboratory, including his notebooks, to the University; 

6. That Defendants be ordered to pay damages to Plaintiff according to proof at 

trial; 

7. That a constructive trust be imposed on the Genia Patents and any portion of 

the Acquisition Payment that Defendant Genia received from Roche relating to the value 

attributable to the Genia Patents; 

8. That Defendant Genia be ordered to disgorge any funds resulting from the 

Roche acquisition which are attributable to the Genia Patents; 

9. That Defendant Chen be ordered to disgorge his share of any funds resulting 

from the Roche acquisition; 

10. That Defendant Chen be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from any 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 31 of 32
 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 

 

COMPLAINT 

31 

further breaches of the Oath; and 

11. That Plaintiff may have such other and further relief as this Court may deem 

proper, including prejudgment interest and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

DATE: December 29, 2016 BAKER BOTTS LLP 

 By:_/s/ Stuart C. Plunkett ____________

 Stuart C. Plunkett 

Paul R. Morico 

 Ariel D. House 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:16-cv-07396-JCS Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 32 of 32