Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/86138883/Bianco-M-D
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 16:34:37
Document Index: 21826094

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 256', '§1331', '§1338', '§ 1367', '§1332', '§ 1391', '§ 115', '§ 256', '§ 256']

Bianco, M.D. | Trade Secret | Patent Application
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00147: Bianco, M.D. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l5HG for more info.
enregistrerEnregistrer Bianco, M.D. pour plus tard
SABATINO BIANCO, M.D.,
Plaintiff Dr. Sabatino Bianco, M.D. (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Bianco”) files this Original
Complaint against Defendant Globus Medical, Incorporated (“Globus”) as follows:
1. Dr. Bianco resides in Dalworthington Gardens, Texas and is a citizen of Texas for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Globus is one of the world’s largest privately held medical device companies.
Globus is incorporated in the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in the
State of Pennsylvania, located at 2560 General Armistead Avenue, Audubon, Pennsylvania
3. This is an action for correction of inventorship of a United States patent arising
under 35 U.S.C. § 256. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and §1338(a). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Bianco’s state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367, 1338(b).
4. In addition, complete diversity exists between the parties, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction is also proper in this case
under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Globus because a substantial part of the
misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information, as well as a breach of an
agreement not to improperly use information and to keep such information confidential. Plaintiff
developed and maintained his confidential information and trade secrets in Texas, entered a
confidential information to the Defendant in reliance on the agreement in Texas, and received
various misrepresentations concerning the Defendant’s intent to use the invention in Texas.
6. Globus sells medical devices incorporating Plaintiff’s confidential information
into Texas, and the Plaintiff has been injured in Texas. Globus therefore has minimum contacts
with the State of Texas that give rise to the causes of action asserted herein. It is consistent with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to exercise jurisdiction over Globus in
7. A substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the
Eastern District of Texas. Venue is therefore proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
8. Plaintiff is a well-respected neurosurgeon specializing in minimally-invasive
brain and spine surgeries. He is the former Chairman of Neurosurgery at Trinity Mother Frances
Healthcare Systems (“TMFHS”) in Tyler, Texas.
He currently owns a surgical practice in
9. During his tenure at TMFHS, Dr. Bianco had a close working relationship with
Globus. At that time, Globus was a relatively new company with minimal market share in East
Texas, and Globus was attempting to increase its penetration in the East Texas market. Plaintiff
worked closely with Globus and its representatives for several years.
10. As is customary in the medical device industry, Globus relies on surgeons to bring
it ideas and surgical know-how. Globus takes those ideas, and after compensating the physician
improvements to existing products in its product lines.
Consistent with this practice, Globus
sought ideas and surgical know-how from Dr. Bianco.
11. Globus entered into a confidentiality agreement with Dr. Bianco and agreed that if
Dr. Bianco would share his ideas and designs for medical devices with Globus, Globus would
not use those ideas and designs for its own purposes or disclose them to the public without
receiving permission from Dr. Bianco. Such agreements are standard in the industry. Dr. Bianco
and Globus entered into the confidentiality agreement in the State of Texas.
12. In 2007, Dr. Bianco conceived of an idea and a product design for an expandable
intervertebral fusion device for use in minimally invasive spinal surgeries. At Globus’s request,
Plaintiff memorialized his idea and his product design in a written document that contained
drawings of his invention (the “Invention Disclosure”).
Dr. Bianco maintained the secrecy of
this information until he disclosed it to Globus pursuant to the confidentiality agreement, and he
did not disclose the idea to any other medical device company.
13. A representative of Globus took the Invention Disclosure and told Dr. Bianco that
Globus would evaluate his idea and would inform him whether Globus was interested in
commercializing it. The Globus representative represented to Dr. Bianco that if Globus decided
to use the idea, Globus would compensate Dr. Bianco with a royalty arrangement similar to those
that are customary in the industry.
14. In late 2009 or early 2010, a representative of Globus informed Plaintiff that
Globus was not interested in developing or commercializing the Plaintiff’s idea or design and
returned the Invention Disclosure to Dr. Bianco. At the same time, unbeknownst to Dr. Bianco,
Globus was actively developing a medical device known as the Caliber-L, an expandable intra-
vertebral fusion device that incorporated the function and features included in the Invention
On information and belief, Globus used the confidential information Plaintiff
disclosed to it during its design of the Caliber-L product.
15. Globus released the Caliber-L product in November 2011 and has continued to
use Dr. Bianco’s confidential information in breach of their agreement by selling large numbers
of the Caliber-L product to surgeons around the country who perform minimally invasive
surgeries without providing any compensation to Dr. Bianco.
16. In addition, unbeknownst to Dr. Bianco, Globus filed United States Patent
Application Number 12/579,833 (“the ’833 application”) on October 15, 2009.
and features of Dr. Bianco’s idea and design can be found in the disclosure of the ’833
application. The ’833 application did not name Dr. Bianco as an inventor.
8,062,375
’375
“EXPANDABLE
FUSION DEVICE AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION THEREOF” issued from the ’833
application on November 22, 2011 (copy attached as Exhibit A). The ’375 patent is assigned to
Globus. The ’375 patent does not list Dr. Bianco as inventor.
18. Dr. Bianco possessed valuable trade secrets in the design of the expandable inter-
body spacer device.
He maintained, or took reasonable precautions to maintain, the secrecy of
that information. He disclosed the information to Globus under circumstances that gave him an
expectation that Globus would maintain the confidentiality of the information and would not use
that information for its own benefit without obtaining permission from Dr. Bianco and
compensating Dr. Bianco.
Globus acquired Dr. Bianco’s trade secrets through a relationship of
trust and under a confidentiality agreement.
19. On information and belief, Globus used the information for its own benefit and
disclosed it to the public with knowledge that the information constituted trade secrets. Globus
thereby misappropriated Dr. Bianco’s trade secrets. Globus did not obtain permission to disclose
the trade secrets and did not compensate Dr. Bianco for the use of the trade secrets. Globus acted
willfully and maliciously in misappropriating Dr. Bianco’s trade secrets. Dr. Bianco has suffered
actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. Dr. Bianco is further entitled
to punitive damages as well as injunctive relief.
20. Globus entered an agreement with Dr. Bianco to maintain the confidentiality of
Dr. Bianco’s idea for an expandable interbody spacer device.
Globus agreed that it would not
use that information for its own benefit without obtaining permission from Dr. Bianco and
21. Globus breached the agreement with Dr. Bianco to maintain the confidentiality of
Globus breached the agreement not use that information for its own benefit
without obtaining permission from Dr. Bianco and compensating Dr. Bianco.
22. Dr. Bianco performed all conditions precedent to enforcement of the agreement.
23. Dr. Bianco has suffered actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier
24. The ’375 patent does not name Dr. Bianco as inventor.
25. The omission of Dr. Bianco as inventor of the ’375 patent was done without any
deceptive intent on his part. The omission of Dr. Bianco as inventor of the ’375 patent was done
intentionally by Globus.
By failing to name Dr. Bianco as inventor in the declaration filed in
support of the ’833 application, Globus violated 35 U.S.C. §§ 115 and 116, which require the
identification of each inventor in the oath or declaration supporting a patent application.
26. Dr. Bianco has, and will continue to, incur harm to his right, title and interest in
and to the ’375 patent caused by the incorrect inventorship.
27. Under 35 U.S.C. § 256, this Court may order correction of the ’375 patent and
order the Commissioner of Patents to issue a certificate accordingly.
Without correction of
inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, Globus’s violation of these federal statutes will continue
unabated to the detriment of Dr. Bianco and the public at large.
28. Dr. Bianco therefore requests correction of inventorship in the ’375 patent to
insure compliance with the federal requirement for filing patent applications and to preserve his
good name and reputation, and to properly identify Dr. Bianco as inventor for the benefit of the
29. Globus accepted the Invention Disclosure promising Dr. Bianco that it would
review it in good faith and it would not use that information for its own benefit without obtaining
permission from Dr. Bianco and compensating Dr. Bianco.
Globus kept the Invention Disclosure for an extended period of time, robbing Dr.
During this time, Globus never informed Dr. Bianco that Globus was
secretly in the process of filing a patent application on a device that incorporated the function
and features of Dr. Bianco’s idea.
31. After filing its patent application, Globus then returned the Invention Disclosure,
falsely claiming that it had no interest in Dr. Bianco’s idea.
Globus’s
contemplated by Texas law. Thus, Dr. Bianco is entitled to actual and punitive damages, as well
as injunctive relief.
33. In late 2009 or early 2010, Globus represented to Dr. Bianco that Globus was not
interested in developing or commercializing the Plaintiff’s idea or design and returned the
Invention Disclosure to Dr. Bianco.
34. Globus’s representation was material because it related directly to the Invention
Disclosure that disclosed Dr. Bianco’s idea to Globus.
35. Globus’s representation was a false statement of fact.
36. Globus knew that the statement was false because at the same time, unbeknownst
to Dr. Bianco, Globus was actively developing a medical device known as the Caliber-L, an
expandable intra-vertebral fusion device that incorporated the function and features included in
the Invention Disclosure.
On information and belief, Globus used the confidential information
Plaintiff disclosed to it during its design of the Caliber-L product.
37. In addition, unbeknownst to Dr. Bianco, Globus had already filed the ’833
application on October 15, 2009. The functions and features of Dr. Bianco’s idea and design can
be found in the disclosure of the ’833 application. The ’833 application did not name Dr. Bianco
38. Globus intended Dr. Bianco to rely on the representation.
39. Dr. Bianco relied on the representation, believing that Globus really had no
interest in the idea, and as a result he believed that his idea may not have been as valuable as he
Dr. Bianco because Dr. Bianco lost the opportunity to seek out other avenues to commercialize
41. Dr. Bianco is entitled to actual and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
42. Globus obtained the Invention Disclosure promising Dr. Bianco that it would not
43. Globus, after retaining the Invention Disclosure for an extended period of time,
returned it to Dr. Bianco, representing to him that Globus was not interested in developing or
commercializing his idea or design. Globus never informed Dr. Bianco that Globus was secretly
in the process of developing a commercial product and filing a patent application on a device that
incorporated the function and features of Dr. Bianco’s idea.
Globus therefore unlawfully
appropriated Dr. Bianco’s property and is liable for theft under the Texas Theft Liability Act.
44. Globus has committed theft and is therefore liable to Dr. Bianco for the damages
resulting from that theft, including actual damages as determined by the trier of fact and any
additional damages allowed under the law.
45. The misappropriation of trade secrets and other conduct referenced herein was
done with malice. Globus is therefore liable for exemplary damages as a result of its conduct.
46. Dr. Bianco has suffered irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at
law. Dr. Bianco has and will continue to suffer injury by virtue of Globus’s misappropriation of
his ideas and product design.
Globus’s actions have interfered with and will interfere with Dr.
Bianco’s ability to license to technology to Globus’s competitors.
47. The balance of hardships favors Dr. Bianco’s ability to commercialize his own
48. The public interest also supports injunctive relief in this case.
49. Dr. Bianco hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
50. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the
Defendant be cited to appear and answer and that, upon final hearing, Plaintiff be awarded the
a. actual damages, both past and future;
b. special damages;
d. a preliminary and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and all
others acting in concert with it from making, using, selling, or otherwise
continuing to appropriate Plaintiff’s confidential information and trade
e. a declaration naming Dr. Bianco as inventor of the ’375 patent;
f. an order directing the Commissioner of Patents to name Dr. Bianco as
inventor of the ’375 patent;
g. attorneys’ fees; and
h. costs of court.
202265672
By: /s/ Michael Simons
Michael Simons (Lead Attorney) Texas Bar No. 24008042
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: 512.499.6253 Facsimile: 512.499.6290 Email: msimons@akingump.com
David M. Stein Texas Bar No. 00797494
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 5000
Los Angeles, California 90071-2081 Telephone: 213.254.1240 Facsimile: 213.254.1201 Email: dstein@akingump.com
Ifti Ahmed Texas Bar No. 24064795 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 1111 Louisiana Street, 44 th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713.220.5800 Facsimile: 713.236.0822 Email: iahmed@akingump.com
Don Edwin Stokes
Texas Bar No. 19268000 The Stokes Firm
109 East Houston Street
Marshall, TX 75670 Phone: 903.938.5252 Facsimile: 903.938.8616 Email: don@stokesfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SABATINO BIANCO, M.D.
Documents similaires à Bianco, M.D.
msherd il
Land Titile Midterms
PATENT DRAFTING.docx
rwavra
Pingaroopie
Us 8094870
Sprintquip Pty Ltd v Lockit Systems
BCM 50 Istalacion y Mantenimiento
Walstrom vs Mapa
Copy of Noting.doc
Shrishti Joshi