Case Number: 1:12-cv-02650-RWS (Dkt. 88)

In a dispute dating from 2003 concerning the ownership of patent involving desmopressin, a synthetic hormone used to treat excessive urine production, Judge Sweet denied plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs proposed many counts, including breach of common law duty, breach of contract, and interference with contractual relations. The rulings with respect to patent issues were:

1. Rejecting patent ownership claims based on replevin. Plaintiffs hoped that the replevin claim would not be time-barred, as “demand and refusal” did not occur until 2012. “[W]here a plaintiff is essentially seeking enforcement of the bargain, the action should proceed under a contract theory.”
2. Rejected patent ownership claims as futile because of laches.
3. Rejected conversion claims with respect to inventions, as “an idea cannot be converted.”