Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 2 of 17 PageID# 156
`TRANSLATION
`
`LETTERHEAD OF PLESNER LAW FIRM
`
`MII<KEL vmRUP
`TEL 33 12 11 33
`7 DECEMBER2012
`
`WRIT OF SUMMONS
`
`NuevolutionA/S
`CVR no. 26029708
`R01megade 8, 5·
`2100 Copenhagen 0
`De run ark
`Represented by attorney Mikkel Vittrup
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Chemgene Ho1<lingApS
`CVR no. 25909291
`Skovalleen 36
`2880 Bagsvrerd
`Denmark
`Represented by attorney Jacob 0rrrdrup
`
`Henrik Pedersen
`Skovalleen 36
`2880 Bagsvrerd
`Denmark
`Represented by attorney Jacob 0rndrup
`
`Claims
`
`Chemgene Hol<ling ApS and Henrik Pedersen be ordered to accept that
`Nuevolution A/S has lawfully filed US continuation no. 13/442,236 (exhibit 1),
`cf. clause 3.5 of the agreement between Chemgene Holding ApS, Henrik
`Pedersen and Nuevolution A/S (exhibit 2).
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS and Henrik Pedersen be ordered to accept that neither
`Chemgene Holding ApS nor Henrik Pedersen had the legal authority to
`terminate the agreement between Chern gene Holding ApS, Henrik Pedersen
`and Nuevolution A/S (exhibit 2).
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS and Henrik Pedersen be ordered to accept that the
`termination of the agreement between Chemgene HoldingApS, Henrik
`Pedersen and Nuevolution A/S (exhibit 2) in Chemgene Holding ApS' letter of 4
`June 2012 was invalid and thus does not imply a termination of the license
`granted to Nuevolution under the agreement.
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS and Henrik Pedersen be ordered to accept that the
`unauthorised termination of the agreement between Chemgene Holding ApS,
`Henrik Pedersen and Nuevolution A/S (exhibit 2) notified by Chemgene
`Holding ApS in letter of 4 June 2012 (exhibit 12) gives Nuevolution the right to
`terminate the agreement (exhibit 2) in pursuance of clause 6.1 of the agreement,
`and that such termination implies that Chemgene Holding Aps and Henrik
`
`vs.
`
`1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3·
`
`4.
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 3 of 17 PageID# 157
`
`Pedersen in solidum to Nuevolution A/S must pay DKK 900,ooo and that
`Nuevolution's license under the agreement (exhibit 2) is maintained on
`unchanged terms, whereby the license, however, becomes cost free for
`Nuevolution.
`
`Chemgene HoldingApS and Henrik Pedersen be ordered to accept that
`Nuevolution A/S can rightfully claim that the agreement between Chemgene
`Holding Aps, Henrik Pedersen and Nuevlolution A/S (exhibit 2) is invalid, that
`Chemgene Holding ApS and Henrik Pedersen in solidum must pay DKK
`900,000 to Nuevolution A/S, and that neither Chemgene HoldingApS nor
`Henrik Pedersen can enforce the Patents against Nuevolution.
`
`Chemgene HoldingApS and Heruik Pedersen be ordered to accept that Peter
`Birk Rasmussen is not the sole inventor of the invention described in the
`[Patents].
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS and Henrik Pedersen be ordered to accept that Henrik
`Pedersen is Ute co-inventor of the invention described in the [Patents], which
`the relevant patent authorities, including the USPTO, be informed of.
`
`Henrik Pedersen's right to the invention covered by the [Patents] be transferred
`to Nuevolution A/S cost free.
`
`Chemgcne HoldingApS and Henri'k Pedersen's ownership to the [Patents] be
`transferred to Nuevolution A/S cost free.
`
`Procedural comments
`
`s.
`
`6.
`
`7·
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`2
`
`The issues involved in this case primarily concern patent law issues, including issues
`concerning the ownership to US continuation no. 13/442,236 (exhibit 1) and issues
`concerning the rightful ownership of the invention covered by the [Patents]. Therefore,
`the case has been brought before the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court, cf.
`clause 225 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.
`
`The case concerns a number of confidential issues. Nuevolution therefore requests a
`private hearing in pursuance of section 29(1) and (2) of the Danish Administration of
`Justice Act.
`
`The Parties have been in contact prior to filing this writ of summons. In this respect, the
`Parties agreed that the time spent on this contact, would not affect the parties' legal
`position. The contact ended at the beginning of November, and on 9 November 2012
`Nuevolution made it clear to Henrik Pedersen and Chemgene Holding that Nuevolution
`would initiate proceedings in respect of the claints made above. Nuevolution subsequently
`sta11ed collecting the relevant evidence. This task is not yet concluded, and Nuevolution
`thus expects to present additional evidence relevant to this case. However~ the writ of
`summons is filed now in order to ensure Nuevolution's legal position. Nuevolution agrees
`that Henrik Pedersen and Chemgene Holding's statement of defence awaits a
`supplementary pleading from Nuevolution.
`
`3
`
`3.1
`
`Particulars of claim and allegations
`
`The agreement between Henrik Pedersen, Chemgene Holding and Nuevolution
`
`Henrik Pedersen, Chemgene Holding and Nuevolution in August 2007 entered into an
`agreement (the Agreement), excerpts of which are submitted as exhibit 2.
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 4 of 17 PageID# 158
`TRANSLATJON
`
`LETTERHEAD OF PLESNER LAW FI RM
`
`The Agreement concern~, inter alia, the ownership and the right of use of a patent family,
`which is defined in clause 3.1 of the Agreemen t, and which in the Agreement and in this
`writ of summons is referred to as ''the Patents''.
`
`In clause 3 of the Ag1'eement a number of rights and obligations are set out, which
`concern the pursuit and maintenance of patent law rights covered by the Patents. Under
`clause 3.2 Nuevolution is granted what is today a non-exclusive license to use th e Patents
`for pharmaceutical applications.
`
`Clause 3-4 sets out that Chemgene Holding "handles - and defrays all costs associated
`with- the patent prosecution[ ... ] and in this respect decides in which territories patent
`protection is sought/' Clause 3-4 thus gives Chemgene Holding the right and the
`obligation to "handle" the patent prosecution, including deciding on how the patent
`positions should b e unfolded, both in terms of geographical range and the material scope
`of protection. It is not set out according to which standards Chemgeue Holding is to fulfil
`its obligation to handle the patent prosecution. However, clause 3-4 sets out that
`Chemgene Holding will keep Nuevolution informed on a current basis. Thus, Cbemgene
`Holding is authorised to handle the patent prosecution, unless the Agreement specifically
`gives Nuevolution the right to intervene, cf. the wording ''Chemgene Holding is obliged to
`keep Nuevolution [ ... ]informed[ ... ], so that Nuevolution can act accordingly to the extent
`that Nuevolution obtains rights in this respect under this Agreement."
`
`Especially clause 3·5 concerns Nuevolution's r ight to intervene in the patent prosecution
`in situ ations that con cern the rights' (i) geographical range or (ii) the material scope of
`protection:
`
`".If CGH (i) does not wish to apply for patent protection in one or more countries
`or territories, or (ii) intends to perform such acts that will result in a limitation of
`the extent of or lapse of a right covered by the Patents, CGH is obliged to inform
`Nuevolution hereof without undue delay and in ample time before the expiry of
`the relevant deadlines. If so, Nuevolution is entitled, but not obliged -in its own
`name and at its own cost- to apply for patent protection and to maintain the
`relevant rights in the cou ntries and territories in wh ich CGH waives its right to
`apply for patent protection or intends to perform acts that will result in a
`limitation of the extent of or a lapse of the rights relating to the Patents. If
`Nu evolution in pursuan ce of this provision applies for patent protection or
`maintenance of rights in relation to the Patents, Nuevolution must free of charge
`acquire the ownership e..xclusively to the rights con cer ned, whereby CGH at the
`same time must be awarded a cost free, interminable and exclusive license to use
`the rights in question for non-pharmaceutical applications d uring the rem aining
`term of the Patents. Thus, Nuevolution (i) cannot award a licence in these rights
`to any third parties outside of pharmaceutical applications; and (ii) cannot itself
`apply these rights outside of pharmaceutical applications."
`
`This dispute relates to a situation where Chemgene Holding in the US has conducted
`negotiations that will result in a limitation of a right comprised by the Patents and where
`Nuevol ution has thus intervened by filing US continuation no. 13/442,236 (exhibit 1).
`
`3.2
`
`The actual circumstances in relation to Nuevolution'sfiling of US continuation
`no. 13/442,236 (exhibit 1)
`
`In 2010, Nuevolution's CEO, Alex Haahr Gouliaev, asked Henrik Pedersen for a status on
`the patent situation. As for the US, Henrik Pedersen stated that the pending American
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 5 of 17 PageID# 159
`
`patent application 11/ 719,846, which was covered by the Patents, provided the basis for a
`wider scope of protection than what was then ftled for. Henrik Pedersen stated that there
`was:
`
`"a good basis for a number of interesting rights in a divisional application in the
`US'' (exhibit 3)
`
`Chemgeoe Holding's patent agent, Plougmann & Vingtoft, pursued this opportunity
`through its American liaison, Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear LLP, by filing a set of new,
`independent patent claims on 21 June 2011 in US application 11/719, 846. Reference is
`made to exhibit 4, which is part of the publicly accessible part of the application.
`
`The USPTO on 12 September 2011 announced that the recently claims as filed could nol
`readily be accepted. See in this respect exhibit s.
`
`On 9 November 2011, Chemgene Holding (through Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear LLP)
`informed the USPTO that patent application US 11/719,846 was limited to concerning
`solely claims 1-18, 20, 22-32, 36-41 and 44-53. See in this respect exhibit 6.
`
`On 28 December 2011, the USPTO forwarded a so-called "Notice of allowance and fee(s)
`due"- to Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear LLP; see in this respect exhibit z. Such notice is
`forwarded when a patent authority has concluded its material processing of the patent
`application and is prepared to issue the patent in accordance w:itb the application filed.
`The only condition for issuing the patent is that an issue fee be paid. The deadline for
`paying this fee was stated to be 28 March 2012.
`
`In retrospect it was established that Chemgene Holding in December 2011 had breached
`its obligation to keep Nuevolution informed of the development in the American patent
`matter; see in this respect clause 3·4 of the Agreement. Chemgene Holding's breach
`implied that Nuevolution in December 2011 had not been notified of and did not have any
`knowledge of the described application procedure and the status thereof.
`
`Nuevolution's patent agent, European Patent Attorney Jesper Levin from Hjerrild & Levin
`A/S, on 15 March 2012 reminded Henrik Pedersen of providing him with a general update
`(exhibit 8): This resulted in Henrik Pedersen writing an email dated 21 March 2012
`(exhibit 9) in which it is, inter alia, stated:
`
`"As regards the American app1ication, US n/719,846, we have received a Notice
`of Allowance, and we have until 28 March 2012 to pay the fee for the issue of the
`patent.
`
`There are no divisional applications/patents. Under the American application, it
`is still possible to file a divisional/continuation application. However, we do not
`feel that this is necessary. "
`
`Thus, the situation was that even though HenrikPedersen/Chemgene Holding in 2010
`had pointed out the good basis for a wider protection than originally filed for, and even
`though Henrik Pedersen/Chemgene Holding in 2011 had sought to take this opportunity
`to flle additional patent claims, Henrik Pedersen/Chemgene Holding later in 2011 chose
`to withdraw the claims without at the same time filing a divisional application
`(continuation). The result was an immediate limitation of the scope of protection of the
`patent position filed for. Nuevolution was thus under clause 3·5 of the Agreement entitled
`to intervene in order to avoid limitation of the scope of protection.
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 6 of 17 PageID# 160
`TRANSlATION
`
`LETTERHEAD OF PLESNER lAW FIRM
`
`The possibility of exercising this right of intervention was, however, challenged by the fact
`that the USPTO as mentioned above on 28 March 2012 had set a deadline for the
`payment of the issue fee for the US patent. It is solely possible to fJJe a divisional
`application up until the time at which the parent patent is actually issued. Once the issue
`fee is paid, the parent patent may be issued at any subsequent time. The exact issue date
`is not known in advance, and thus there was a risk that the parent patent would be issued
`immediately after payment of the issue fee. Nuevolution's American patent agent, Lin
`Hymel from Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Lebovici LLP, provided advice through
`Jesper Levin to Nuevolution in order to secure its legal position by as quickly as possible
`to file a divisional application; see in this respect email of 2 April2012 (exhibit 10).
`
`Subsequently, Jesper Levin contacted Henrik Pedersen by telephone in order to obtain
`confirmation (i) that HentikPedersen/Chemgene Holding did not intend to file a
`divisional application and (ii) to reconfirm that, if so, Nuevolution wished to file a
`divisional application. During this conversation Henrik Pedersen confirmed that he did
`not intend to file a divisional application and that he accepted that Nuevolution filed a
`divisional application in the US. During the conversation, Henril< Pedersen emphasised
`that such filing would take place under the precondition that Nuevolution would cover all
`costs related thereto. Jesper Levin stated that Nuevolution agreed with that. Against this
`background, Nuevolution instructed J esper Levin on taking steps in respect of ensuring
`the filing of a divisional US patent application.
`
`Nuevolution thus secured its legal position by filing a divisional application, US
`continuation no. 13/442,236 (exhibit 1), on 9 April 2012 (exhibit 1). This step is, as stated
`above, authorised under the Agreement, just as it was specifically accepted by He.nrik
`Pedersen, cf. claim 1.
`
`In subsequent email correspondence (exhibit 11) Henrik Pedersen has denied that
`Nuevolution was allowed to file a divisional application. Henrik Pedersen has, inter alia,
`referred to the fact that clause 3·5 of the Agreement - in Henrik Pedersen's opinion (cid:173)
`solely concerns territorial limitations, and that clause 3·5 does not apply in this situation
`relating to the material scope of protection. This opinion resulted in Henrik
`PedersenjChemgene Holding terminating the Agreement by letter of 4 June 2012 (exhibit
`12.) and in this respect threatening Nuevolution with initiating injunction proceedings.
`This termination is unauthorised and thus invalid, cf. claims 2 and 3.
`
`Henrik Pedersen/Chemgene Holding's u nauthorised termination and the serious threats
`made imply a material breach, which in itself gives Nuevolution authorisation to
`terminate the Agreement, cf. in this respect claim 4. Furthermore, the Agreement is
`invalid, cf. claim 5, especially as a result of the false preconditions on which the
`Agreement is based due to Henrik Pedersen's circumstances, cf. the actual circumstances
`stated immediately below and the general dochine of fundamental breach and sections
`30) 33 and 36 of the Danish Contracts Act.
`
`3·3
`
`The question ofinventorship
`
`At least to the extent that Nuevo1ution's claims 4 or 5 are sustained, Nuevolution will be
`in a position to terminate the Agreement and/ or to deem it to be invalid. This provides
`the opportunity for a material examination of the inventorship to the invention covered
`by the Patents. The factual circumstances concern sensitive information and Nuevo1ution
`thus for now limits its comments to the following:
`
`The technology covered by the Patents relates to Nuevolution's technology platform.
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 7 of 17 PageID# 161
`
`Peter Birk Rasmussen is stated to be the sole inventor on the Patents. Henrik Pedersen
`was on the relevant priority date employed as CSO with NuevoJution. However,
`Nu~volution has obtained new documentation concerning the inventorship, cf. in this
`respect claims 6-7.
`
`Henrik Pedersen is both pursuant to his employment agreement, cf. exhibit 13, and
`pursuant to section 5 of the Act on Employees I nventions obliged to transfer his part of
`the ownetship rights to the invented technology covered by the Patents to Nuevolution.
`Henrik Pedersen has not clarified the relevant actual circumstances and the 4-month time
`limit under section 7 has not yet commenced. In any event, Nuevolution wishes that all
`Henrik Pedersen's rights be transferred to Nuevolution. In this situation, Nuevolution
`also wishes that the ownership to the rights under the Patents be transferred to
`Nuevolution, cf. claims 8-9. Please note in this respect that the time limit under section
`52(2) of the Danish Patents Act must be deemed to be suspended, since Nuevolution has
`not had the necessary insight into the actual circumstances on which Nuevolution's
`claims are based.
`
`4
`
`4.1
`
`Evidence
`
`Statements
`
`Nucvolution's CEO, Alex Haahr Gouliaev, will give evidence as a party representative.
`
`Nuevolution wishes to call Peter Birk Rasmussen as wel1 as one or more ofNuevolution's
`empLoyees to give evidence in relation to claims 6-9.
`
`4.2
`
`Documents
`
`Exhibit 1:
`Exhibit 2:
`
`Exhibit 3:
`Exhibit4:
`Exhibit 5:
`
`Exhibit 6:
`
`Exhibit 7=
`
`ExhibitS:
`
`Exhibit 9:
`Exhibit 10:
`
`Exhibit 11:
`Exhibit 12:
`Exhibit 13:
`
`US continuation no. 13/442,236 (will be submitted later)
`Agreement between Nuevolution A/S, Henrik Pedersen and Chemgene
`HoldingApS
`Email from Henrik Pedersen of 10 August 2010, 4: 13pm
`US Application No. 11/719846
`Notification from the American patent authority, USPTO, of 12
`September 2011
`Notification from Chemgene Holding (through Knobbe Martens Olsen &
`Bear LLP) to the USPTO of 9 November 2011
`"Notice of allowance and fee(s) due"- notification from the USPTO to
`Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear LLP of 28 December 2011
`European Patent Attorney Jesper Levin's reminder of 15 March 2012 to
`Henrik Pedersen
`Email from Henrik Pedersen of 21 March 2012 to Jesper Levin
`Nuevolution's American patent agent, Lin Hymel's email of 2 April 2012
`to J esper Levin
`Email correspondence between Jesper Levin and Henrik Pedersen
`Chemgene Holding ApS' letter of 4 June 2012
`Henrik Pedersen's employment agreement (Employment Agreement)
`
`Copenhagen, 7 December 2012
`
`Mikkel Vittrup
`
`Jakob Krag Nielsen
`attorney
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 8 of 17 PageID# 162
`
`I, the undersigned Tina Rosenkilde, authorised translator and interpreter of the English language,
`hereby certify the preceding writ of summons to be a true and faithful translation of the attached
`copy in the Danish language.
`
`In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Seal of Office.
`
`28 August 2014
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 9 of 17 PageID# 163
`
`PLESNER
`AOVOKATFIRMA
`
`MIKKfL VmRUP
`TLF 33 12 U JJ
`7. DECEMBER 20U
`
`ST.EVNING
`
`Nuevolut!on A/S
`CVR-nr. 26029708
`R0nnegade s, 5.
`2100 K~benhavn flJ
`v/advokat Mfkkel Vlttrup
`
`1 Chemgene Holding ApS
`CVR-nr. 25909291
`Skovalleen 36
`2880 Bagsvserd
`v/advokatJacob 0rhdrup
`
`2 Henrlk Pedersen
`Sl<ovatleen 36
`2880 Bagsv«Erd
`v/advokat Jacob 0rndrup
`
`Mod
`
`1
`
`PAstande
`
`2
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrik Pedersen tilpligtes at anerkende,
`at Nuevolutlon A/S retmresslgt har Iadet lndlevere den som bilag 1
`fremlagte US continuation nt. 13/442,236, jf. ponkt 3.5 I aftalen
`mellem Chemgene Holding ApS, Henrlk Pedersen og Nuevolution
`A/S (bllag 2) .
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrik Pedersen tilpllgtes at anerkende,
`at hverken Chemgene Holding ApS eller Henrik Pedersen har haft
`hjemmel til at o~ ~metlem Chern gene Holding ApS,
`Henrik Pedersen og Nuev~~A/5 (bllag 2).
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 10 of 17 PageID# 164
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`B
`
`PLEB N ER
`
`Chemgene Holding Ap5 og Henrlk Pedersen tllpligtes at anerkende,
`at den I Chemgene Holding Ap5' brev af 4. junl 2012 lndeholdte
`ophrevelse af (~..!..:V mellem Chemgene Holding ApS, Henrik
`Pedersen og Nuevolutlon A/5 (bilag 2) er ugyldig og derfor ikke
`fndebrerer noget oph111r af den til Nuevolutlon I aftalen glvne llcens.
`
`Chetngene Holding ApS og Henrlk Pedersen tilpllgtes at anerkende,
`at den l Chemgene Holding ApS' brev af' 4. Junf 2012 (bllag 12)
`indeholdte uhJemlede ophreveise af aftalen merlem Chemgene
`Hold ing ApS, Henrlk Pedersen og Nuevolutlon A/5 (bllag 2) giver
`Nuevolution A/5 ret til at oe!!_rev~ (bllag 2) I medfi/Jr af
`aftalens punkt 6 .1, og at en s~dan ophrevelse lndebrerer, at
`til
`Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrlk Pedersen
`in solidum
`Nuevolutlon A/S skal betale 900.000 kr., samt at Nuevolutlons
`Hcens i medf111r af aftalen (bllag 2) opretholdes p§ urendrecfe vflkar,
`idet licensen dog btiver vederlagsfri for Nuevolutlon.
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrik Pedersen tllpligtes at anerkende,
`at Nuevolution A/S med rette kan hcevde, at aftalen mellem
`Chemgene Holding ApS, Henrlk Pedersen og Nuevolution A/S (bllag
`2) er ugyldlg, at Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrik Pedersen in
`solidum til Nuevolutlon A/S skal betale 900.000 kr, og at hverken
`Chemgene Holding ApS eller Henrik Pedersen kan hSndhceve
`Patenterne mod Nuevolutlon.
`
`Chemgene Holding Ap5 og Henrlk Pedersen tilpligtes at anerkende,
`at Peter Birk Rasmussen
`ikke er eneopfinder af opflndelsen
`besl<revet i (Patenterne] .
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrik Pedersen tilpligtes at anerkende,
`at blandt andet Henrik Pedersen er medopfinder af opflndelsen
`beskrevet I [Patenterne], hvllket relevante patentmyndigheder,
`herunder USPTO, underrettes om.
`
`til opfindelsen omfattet af
`Henrlk Pedersens opfinderret
`[ Patenterne] overfl!lres vederlagsfrit til Nuevolutlon A/5.
`
`2
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 11 of 17 PageID# 165
`
`PLESI'\.IER
`
`9
`
`2
`
`Chemgene Holding ApS og Henrik Pedersens ejendomsrettlgheder
`til [Patenterne] overf0res vederlagsfrit t il Nuevolutton A/5.
`
`Processuelle bemi!Brknlnger
`
`Ncerv<erende sags problemstillinger ang;r i vcesentligt omfang patentretllge splllrgsm~l, her(cid:173)
`under sp0rgsmSI om ejendomsretten til US continuation nr. 13/442,236 (bllag 1) samt
`splllrgsmSiet om rette ejerskab til opfindelsen omfattet af [Patenterne]. Sagen er derfor an (cid:173)
`lagt ved Sill- og Handelsretten, jf. retsplejelovens § 225.
`
`Sagen angar en rcel<ke fortrollge forhold. Nuevolution anmod~r derfor om d.0rluknlng r medfer
`af retsplejelovens § 29, stk. 1 og 2.
`
`Parterne har·forud for lndleveringen af ncervoorende stoovning vreret I ctl~ log. Parterne har I
`denne forblndelse vceret enige om, at den tid, som medglk til dialogen, lkke pavirkede par(cid:173)
`ternes retsstflling. Dialogen stoppede i starten af november, og Nuevolutlon klargjorde den
`9. november 2012 over for Henrlk Pedersen og Chemgene Holding, at Nuevolution ville tage
`inltiativ til pSdC~Jmmelse af de ovenfor anf.0rte pSstande. Nuevolution har efterfllllgende pabe(cid:173)
`gyndt indsamlfngen af refevante bevlser. Dette arbejde er endnu ikke afsluttet, og Nuevolutl(cid:173)
`on forventer derfor at fremlregg e yderligere bevlser med umiddelbar relevans for sagen.
`Strevnlngen indleveres imidlertid nu for at slkre Nuevolutlons retsstilling. Nuevolution er dog
`lndforstaet med 1 at Henrlk Pedersen og Chemgene Holdings svarskrlft kan afvente et supple·
`rende processkrift fra Nuevolutions side.
`
`3
`
`Sagsfremstilling og anbringender
`
`3.1
`
`Aftalen mel/em Henrik Pedersen, Chemgene Holding og Nuevolution
`
`Henrik Pedersen, Chemgene Holding og Nuevolution lndgik i august 2007 envaftale (Aftalen),
`der i uddrag fremlcegges som bilaq 2.
`
`Aftalen angSr blandt andet ejendoms- og udnyttelses-retten til en patentfamHie, der er defi(cid:173)
`neret 1 Aftalens punkt 3.1, og som i Aftalen og her samlet benrevnes "Patenterne" .
`
`I Aftalens punkt 3 fastlcegges en rookke rettigheder og pligter, der angar den patentmcessige
`forf~lgning og vedllgeholdelse af rettigheder omfattet af Patenterne . I punkt 3.2 gives Nue-
`
`3
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 12 of 17 PageID# 166
`
`PLESJ'.JER
`
`volutJon, hvad der I dag er en lkke-ekskluslv llcens til at udnytte Pa.tenterne Ioden for farma(cid:173)
`ceutiske applikationer.
`
`Punkt 3.4 fastlcegger, at Chemgene Holding ''forestSr ~ og afholder samtlige omkostninger
`forbundet med - patentbehandllng [ ... ] og trceffer herunder besiutning om, f hvilke terrltorler,
`der skal ans0ges om patentbeskyttelse." Punkt 3.4 giver aJtsa Chemgene Holding ret og pllgt
`til at '' forestS" patentbehandlingen, herunder beslutte hvordan patentposltlonerne skal udfol(cid:173)
`des, bade nSr det gaelder den geograflske udbredelse og det materlelle beskyttelsesomfang .
`Deter lkke naermere fastlagt efter hvilke normer, Chemgene Holding skal opfyide slh p/lgt til
`at foresta patentbehandlingen. Deter dog I punkt 3.4 bestemt, at Chemgene Holding 10bende
`skal holde Nuevolution orlenteret. Chemgene Holding har altsa kompetencen til at foresta pa(cid:173)
`tentbehandlingen, medmlndre Aftalen konkret giver Nuevolution ret til at lntervenere, jf. ord ·
`Iyden "Chemgene Holding er forpligtet til at holde Nuevolution [ ... ] lnformeret [ ... ], s~ledes
`at Nuevolutlon sikres mullghed for at agere herefter I det omfang Nuevofutron opnSr r~t­
`tighed hertll I hen hold til ncervaerende aftale."
`
`Scerligt punkt 3.5 angSr Nuevolutlons ret til at intervenere i patentbehandl ingen i sltuatloner,
`der angar rettlghedernes {I) geog raflske udbredelse, eller (II) mater!elle beskyttelsesomfang:
`
`"S§fremt CGH (i} lkke li1nsker at udnytte mullgheden for at s~ om patent(cid:173)
`beskyttelse i et eller flere Iande eller terrltorler, (ii) eller har til henslgt at
`foretage handllnger, der vfl resultere i en begrcensnlng af omfanget af eller
`bortfald af en rettlghed omfattet af Patenterne, er CGH rorpligtet til at orlen(cid:173)
`tere Nuevolution herom hurtlgst muligt og I god tid inden udl~bet af relevan(cid:173)
`te tidsfrister. Nuevolutlon har I sS fald ret, men lkke pllgt til ~ I eget navn og
`for egen regning - at s0ge om patentbeskyttelse samt opretholdeise af de
`relevante re~~der 1 de Iande og terrltorier, hvor CGH frafafder sin ret ttl
`at Sfl.lge om patentbeskyttelse elier har tll hensigt at foretage handllnger, der
`vii resultere I en begraensnfng af omfanget af eller bortflad af en rettighed
`lnden tor Patenterne. Hvls Nuevolution i henhold til denne bestemmelse S!i)(cid:173)
`get om patentbeskyttelse eller opretholdelse af rettlgheder omfattet af Pa·
`tenteme, skat Nuevolut.ion vederlagsfrit erhverve ejendomsretten ekskluslvt
`til de omhandlede rettigheder, idet CGH samtidig skal tfldeles en vederlagsfrl
`uopstgelig og ekskluslv llcens til at udnytte de omhandlede rettlgheder inden
`for ikke-farmaceutiske appllkatloner I Pateoternes resterende lebetid. Nue(cid:173)
`vofution m~ s~ledes (I) dels lkke tildele licens til disse rettigheder til tredje(cid:173)
`mand udenfor farmaceutlske applikation, og (ii) dels lkke selv aovende disse
`rettlgheder uden for farmaceutlske appllkatloner."
`
`4
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 13 of 17 PageID# 167
`
`PLEBNEFl
`
`Nrervrerende tvist har rel ation til en situation, hvor Chemgene Holding i USA har foretaget
`handlinger, der vii resultere I en begrzensning af en rettlghed omfattet af Patenterne, og hvor
`Nuevolution derfor har interveneret ved at lnqlevere US continuation nr. 13/442,236 (bllag
`1).
`
`3.2
`
`De faktlske omstrendigheder med relation t/1 Nuevo/utfons lnd/evering af US conti(cid:173)
`nuation nr. 13/442,236 (bilag 1)
`
`Nuevolutions CEO Alex Haahr Gouliaev bad i 201 0 Henrik Pedersen om at give en status pS
`patentsltuatlonen . N~r det gjaldt USA udtrykte Henrlk Pedersen, at den verserende amerl(cid:173)
`kanske patentans0gnlng 11/719,846, som var omfattet af Patenterne, gav grundlag for et
`bredere beskyttelsesomfang, end hvad der pS davrerende tldspunkt var ans0gt om. Henrlk
`Pedersen anf0rte konkret, at der var:
`
`"god basis for en rcekke interessante rettlgheder I en afdelt ans0gnlng I USA"
`
`(~}
`
`Chemgene Holdings patentagent Plougmann & Vlngtoft forfulgte gennem sit amerlkanske for(cid:173)
`bindelseskontor Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear LLP denne mulighed ved den 21. juni 2011 I
`US ll/719,846-ans0gningssagen at lndsende et scet af nye, selvstamdlge patentkrav. Der
`henvlses til .b.iJsl.9....1, som indgSr i den offentHgt tflgzengelige del af ans~gningssager'l.
`
`Den amerikanske patentmyndlghed USPTO meddelte den 12. september 2011, at de nyllgt
`indleverede krav ikke umiddelbart kunne accepteres. Se hertil bilag 5.
`
`Den 9 . november 2011 meddelte Chemgene Holding (gennem Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear
`LLP) USPTO, at patenta ns!~Jgn ingen US 11/719,846 blev begrienset til alene at anga krav 1-
`18, 20, 22-32, 36-41 og 44-53. Se hertil .!2.i..!.gg__§_.
`
`Den 28. december 2011 sendte USPTO en sakaldt "Notice of allowance and fee{s) due"(cid:173)
`besked til Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear LLP, se hertlf 12.!1.illLZ. En sadan besked sendes, nar
`patent myndlgheden har afsluttet sin materielle behandling af patentans~gnlngen og er lnd(cid:173)
`stillet pa at udstede patentet i overensstemmelse med den forellggende ans('Jgning . Eneste
`betingelse for patentudstedelse er, at der betales en udstedelsesafgift. fristen for betalingen
`af denne afgift var fastsat til den 28. marts 20 12.
`
`s
`
`Nuevolution Exhibit 1021
`Writ of Summons
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00357-CMH-TCB Document 16-3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 14 of 17 PageID# 168
`
`PLEBNER
`
`Det kan retrospektlvt konstateres, at Chemgene Holding i december 2011 havde misllgholdt
`sin forpligtelse til at orientere Nuevolutlon om udvikllngen i den amerlkanske patentsag, se
`hertif Aftalens punkt 3.4. Chemgene Holdings mlsltgholdelse lndebar, at Nuevolutlon I de(cid:173)
`cember 2011 s~ledes ikke var blevet bekendtgjordt med og i 0v rigt ikke havde kendskab til
`den beskrevne ans0gningsproces og status.
`
`Nuevolutions patentagent, European Patent Attorney Jesper Levin fra Hjerrild & Levin A/S,
`rykkede den 15. marts 2012 Henrik Pedersen for en generel opdaterlng (.tW.iliL.a). Dette af(cid:173)
`f!lldte fra Henrik Pedersens side en email af 21. marts 2012 (~), hvorl det bf.a. blev an(cid:173)
`f0rt:
`
`"I den amerlkansl<e ans0gnlng, US 11/719,846, har vi modtaget
`en Notice of Allowance og har en frlst den 28. marts 2012 til at
`betale gebyr for udstedelse af patentet.
`
`Der er lngen afdelte ans0gninger/patenter. I den amerlkanske an(cid:173)
`s~gnlng er der stadig mullghed for at lndlevere en dlvlsto(cid:173)
`nal/contfnuatlon ans.C?Jgnlng, hvilket vi dog lkke umiddelbart vur(cid:173)
`derer er n0dvendigt. ''
`
`Situationen var alts~, at selvom Henrfk Pedersen/Chemgene Holding i 2010 selv havde pape(cid:173)
`get den gode basis for bredere beskyttelse end den oprlndeligt ansli!gte, og selvom Henrik
`Pedersen/Chemgene Holding i 2011 havde sragt at udnytte denne mullghed ved at lndlevere
`yderligere patentkrav, ja sa valgte Henri!< Pedersen/Chemgene Holding senere f 2011 at
`traekke kravene tilbage uden samtidig at indlevere en afdelt ansli!gning (continuation). Resul(cid:173)
`-:::.
`--tatet var alts~ umiddelbart en begrc:ensnlng af beskyttefsesomfanget af den ans!2lgte patent(cid:173)
`position. Nuevofution var saledes i medf0r af Aftalens punkt 3.5 berettlget t il at lntervenere
`med henbllk pa at undga begr~nsningen af beskyttetsesomfanget.
`
`~
`Muligheden for at udnytte denne interventionsret var dog udfordret af, at USPTO som n~vnt
`ovenfor havde fastsat den 28. ma rts 2012 som frist for betallng af udstedelsesafgift for US
`patentet. Det er alene muligt at lnd lev