You are on page 1of 19

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
NUEVOLUTION A/S and PETER BIRK RASMUSSEN

jzft AFR -L| p 2 38
CLERK US Di3T;-:i:TCCUaT

ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1i)S-C<)-OQ^5~7

(CM (706
HENRIK PEDERSEN and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CHEMGENE HOLDING ApS,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Nuevolution A/S ("Nuevolution") and Peter Birk Rasmussen (Dr. Rasmussen),

for their Complaint against defendants Henrik Pedersen ("Dr. Pedersen") and Chemgene Holding
ApS ("Chemgene") by and through their respective undersigned attorneys, allege as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION

1.

This is a civil action arising under the patent laws of the United States,

particularly 35 U.S.C. § 256 for the correction of inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 8,168,381 ("the
'381 patent") and Application Serial Nos. 13/442,236 ("the '236 application"), 14/067,789 ("the '789 application"), and 14/230,896 ("the '896 application) (collectively "the U.S. patents-insuit"), and Virginia state claims for conversion and unjust enrichment based on Dr. Pedersen's illegal misappropriation of intellectual property rightfully belonging to Nuevolution. 2. The U.S. patents-in-suit claim priority from PCT/DK2005/000747 (published as

WO 2006/053571 "the PCT application") which, in turn, claims priority from DK 2004/0001809

("the Danish priority application"). The PCT application also formed the basis for EP 1828381,

which was issued by the European Patent Office, and validated in Denmark, Sweden, Germany,
1

Ireland, France, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. These patents and applications are
collectively referredto as "the Patent Family."

3.

Dr. Pedersen was the highest-ranking science officer ofNuevolution during the

period from 2001 until the termination of his employment in 2006.

4.

During the course of his employment, Dr. Pedersen developed certain intellectual

property that is the subject of the Patent Family.

5.

Dr. Pedersen sought to avoid his duty, underboth contract and Danish law, to

assign this intellectual property to Nuevolution by engaging in a systematic pattern ofdeceit whereby he caused Dr. Rasmussen to be named as the sole inventor ofthe Patent Family so that
Dr. Rasmussen could, in turn, assign the Patent Family to Dr. Pedersen and his company,
Chemgene.

6.
Nuevolution.

Defendants have thereby illegally gained at the direct and significant detriment of

7.

This action is thus necessary to correct the inventorship of the U.S. patents-in-

suit, because Nuevolution isentitled to full, undivided ownership of the U.S. patents-in-suit, and
because Nuevolution has no choice but to seekto prevent further harm at the hands of the

Defendants and recompense for Defendants' past conduct. Dr. Rasmussen isjoining in this

lawsuit because he now acknowledges that he is not the inventor ofthe Danish priority application or any member of the Patent Family. Dr. Rasmussen's reputation and standing within the scientific community has been, and will continue to be, harmed by him being listed as the named inventor on the U.S. patents-in-suit. Accordingly, correction of inventorship of the
U.S. patents-in-suit is necessary to mitigate and ameliorate the harm that has been caused to his

reputation by being listed as the inventor on these patents.

THE PARTIES

8.

PlaintiffNuevolution is a business formed under the laws of Denmark, with its

principal place of business at R0nnegade 8,2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 9. Nuevolution is engaged in the development of methods for the creation and use of

large libraries of pharmaceutically-useful small molecules.

10.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Dr. Pedersen is a Danish citizen residing

in Denmark, and a former executive employee of Nuevolution.

11.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Chemgene is a business formed under the

laws of Denmark, having a place of business at Skovalleen 36,2880 Bagsvaerd, Denmark.
12. Upon information and belief, Chemgene is wholly owned by Dr. Pedersen.

13.

Plaintiff Dr. Rasmussen is a Danish citizen residing in Denmark, possessing a

doctorate degree in the field of molecular biology. In the following factual allegations, Dr.
Rasmussen pleads paragraphs 18-21 and 61-83 upon information and belief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14.
seq.

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1et

15.

This Court hasjurisdiction overthe subject matter of the action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331,1338(a) & 1367 and 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 & 256.

16.

Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court for the claims

asserted herein pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293.

17.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2)-(3), as

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293 and the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred partially in thisjudicial district.

SUBSTANTIVE FACTS

Dr. Pedersen Devises A Scheme To Obtain Patents For Certain Inventions That Rightfully
Belong To Nuevolution.

18.

Nuevolution is a leading small molecule drug discovery company that was

founded in 2001. It has developed a patent-protected hybrid approach of wet chemistry and
molecular biology which permits the rapid synthesis, screening and DNA-tagging of hundreds of
millions of chemically diverse small molecules. This process permits medical research teams

with access to Nuevolution's technology to screen small molecule compounds in unprecedented
numbers and speed, which arebeneficial to thedevelopment and testing of new drugs.
19. Dr. Pedersen was one of the founders of Nuevolution (the other two were Mads

Noerregaard-Madsen and Alex Haahr Gouliaev). Dr. Pedersen was Nuevolution's Chief

Scientific Officer (CSO) at the time his employment was terminated in 2006. Dr. Pedersen was

centrally involved in Nuevolution's innovation process thatresulted in the filing of dozens of
patent applications during the period encompassing at least 2002 to 2004. Dr. Pedersen was

named co-inventor on many of these patent applications.

20.

Dr. Pedersen signed a written employment agreement with Nuevolution at the

onset of his employment with the company. Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, and Danish

law, Dr. Pedersen was obligated to assign to Nuevolution inventions that hedeveloped or was otherwise involved in during his employment at Nuevolution in his field of work. Accordingly, Dr. Pedersen was obligated to assign any patent that he was involved in obtaining during his
employment at Nuevolution. Dr. Pedersen's employment agreement further imposed on him
certain duties of loyalty to Nuevolution and prohibited any unauthorized engagement in outside
business endeavors within the scope of Nuevolution's business.

21.

Dr. Pedersen wished to patent certain new ideas that he had conceived during his

employment at Nuevolution and thereafter form a new company to monetize the patents. Dr.

Pedersen could not claim rights to such patents as an inventor because of his continuing duties of
assignment to Nuevolution.

22.

In an effort to tryto avoid his contractual and legal obligations of assignment to

Nuevolution, Dr. Pedersen devised a plan whereby he would guide a substitute in"reconceiving"
his invention. The substitute would then be named as the inventor in a patent application and not subject to a duty of assignment to Nuevolution. Thereafter, the substitute would assign the
patent application to Dr. Pedersen free of any obligation to Nuevolution.

23.

Dr. Pedersen and Dr. Rasmussen had been friends for many years. Their

relationship began at Odense University in theearly-to-mid 1990's, where theyboth studied for

and obtained PhDs in biology. They also worked together in the same laboratory.
24. In late 2003, Dr. Pedersen approached Dr. Rasmussen and told him that he had an

idea which could form the basis of a patent and thereby become the foundation of a new

company. Dr. Pedersen made it clear to Dr. Rasmussen that he had already conceived the
invention. But he needed Dr. Rasmussen's assistance because if Dr. Pedersen was named as an

inventor on a patent application, he would be under an obligation to assign his patent rights to
Nuevolution.

25.

Dr. Rasmussen was initially reluctant to participate in any such project, but Dr.

Pedersen assured Dr. Rasmussen that he had spoken to a lawyer about the process and that the lawyer had advised him that the contemplated process was legitimate and that if any problems
would arise, Dr. Pedersen and not Dr. Rasmussen would be responsible.

26.

At the time, and based on his experience with Danish companies, Dr. Rasmussen

understood that companies regularly attributed inventorship generously, much in the same way that authorship is attributed to authors of scientific articles, i.e. without being critical to the exact

intellectual contribution provided byeach employee, but rather including all employees involved
in the process. Based on these considerations, Dr. Rasmussen agreed to participate in the
project.

27.

Under Dr. Pedersen's proposed plan, Dr. Pedersen would coach Dr. Rasmussen in

such a manner that Dr. Rasmussen could "reconceive" Dr. Pedersen's invention. Dr. Pedersen

advised Dr. Rasmussen that by doing so, Dr. Rasmussen could be named as the inventor of a

patent application. Dr. Rasmussen would then assign theapplication, as well as any rights in
follow-on applications, to Dr. Pedersen, so that Dr. Pedersen could use them as desired in

forming a new company.

28.

Dr. Rasmussen verbally consented to this plan, also agreeing that he would

transfer to Dr. Pedersen the right to any future patent applications, including the right to
elaborate on the Danish priority application with a PCT application, which could form the basis
for applications in numerous jurisdictions.
Dr. Pedersen Provides Dr. Rasmussen With References And Guides Dr. Rasmussen So
That He Can Identify Dr. Pedersen's Invention.

29.

After Dr. Rasmussen verbally consented to Dr. Pedersen's plan, Dr. Pedersen

explained to Dr. Rasmussen that his invention involved a method that Dr. Rasmussen could

"reconceive" by combining the ideas described in two references, Walder (1979) and Lerner
(1996). Dr. Pedersen provided Dr. Rasmussen these references. 30. Dr. Pedersen provided Dr. Rasmussen with a detailed account of both Lerner and

Walder. He explained to Dr. Rasmussen that Walder relates to a templated method for the

synthesis of peptides, and that Lerner relates to a chemical synthesis method for the non-

templated production of libraries of oligomers and polymers, with a focus on peptides. Dr.
Pedersen further explained that his invention involved a system where small molecules could be synthesized and where the molecules could be amplified.
31. Dr. Rasmussen, based on Dr. Pedersen's introduction of the references,

understood that the core of the invention to be patented involved: (1) making certain
modifications to the splitand mix synthesis and the template directed synthesis described in
Lerner and Walder, and (2) combining these modified processes to create one combined method
for increasing the efficiency and screening of small molecule chemical libraries . Both of these
ideas were conceived by Dr. Pedersen, and not Dr. Rasmussen.

32.

Basedon Dr. Pedersen's introduction and explanations, Dr. Rasmussen reviewed

Walder and Lerner.

33.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Pedersen and Dr. Rasmussen met at Dr. Rasmussen's

apartment in Frederiksberg, Denmark to discuss the references so that Dr. Rasmussen could attempt to identify Dr. Pedersen's invention.

34.

Based on the significant guidance that Dr. Rasmussen received from Dr. Pedersen

and in a trial-and-error process, Dr. Pedersen guided Dr. Rasmussen towards his invention.

35.

Within a short period of time, their dialogue resulted in Dr. Rasmussen suggesting

that Dr. Pedersen's invention regarded a method with two consecutive steps: the first being a
non-templated split and mix synthesis of small molecules, so that the resulting small molecules

were furnished with individual DNA tags; and the second step being a templated process where the "DNA tagged" small molecules from the first step were further synthesized by use of DNA
templates.

36.

Dr. Rasmussen's suggested formulation ofDr. Pedersen's invention regarded a

consecutive combination of Lerner and Walder in the form that these references had been
introduced to him by Dr. Pedersen.

37.

At that time, Dr. Rasmussen had only a superficial, theoretical knowledge, and no

practical experience, with these techniques. Accordingly, Dr. Rasmussen's formulation and
understanding of Dr. Pedersen's invention at the time was limited to the above account. In

particular, Dr. Rasmussen had no knowledge ofhow Dr. Pedersen's invention might be exploited
in practice, including how Lerner and Walder should be modified from an operational
perspective.

38.

Dr. Pedersen confirmed that Dr. Rasmussen's above-described suggestion was in

fact the core concept of his invention.

39.

Dr. Pedersen proceeded to explain his invention to Dr. Rasmussen in additional

detail, making it clear to Dr. Rasmussen that he had already formed an operational concept of the
invention prior to their discussion regarding Lerner and Walder.

40.

Prior to Dr. Rasmussen's discussions with Dr. Pedersen regarding the subject

matter of the Patent Family, his biological technical expertise focused on the development of
vaccines. Dr. Rasmussen's expertise and work did not involve or focus on chemical

technologies, such as templated and non-templated methods for the synthesis of libraries of small
molecules.

41.

Specifically, prior to Dr. Pedersen's provision to Dr. Rasmussen of the Walder

and Lerner references, and his introduction regarding the use oftemplated and non-templated
methods for the synthesis of libraries of small molecules, Dr. Rasmussen had notsearched,

analyzed or had any particular motivation for innovating in the specific technological area
involved in the Patent Family.
Dr. Pedersen Directs The Drafting Of The Danish Priority And PCT Applications.

42.

Dr. Pedersen and Dr. Rasmussen met frequently and exchanged e-mails for a

period of approximately three to six months during mid-to-late 2004, during which time they
drafted the Danish priority application. At all times during this period, Dr. Pedersen directed the
drafting of the Danish priority application.

43.

Dr. Pedersen provided all of the subject matter necessary to effectuate the

combination of Lerner and Walder described above. This included Dr. Pedersen's provision of various modifications to the references, including those which are referred to in the specification
of the Danish priorityapplication and shown in Figures 1 and 2.
44. Dr. Pedersen told Dr. Rasmussen that the modifications of Walder and Lerner and

the content of the examples and figures of the Danish priority application came from published
material, including published patent applications, and that anyone was free to use this material.

Dr. Rasmussen did not know at the time, nor does he know today, the sourceof this material or

the modifications to Walder and Lerner that allowed these references to be operationally
combined into a new method.

45.

Dr. Rasmussen neither participated in norcontributed to any practical

experiments in connection with the preparation of the Danish priority application.

46.

Dr. Rasmussen prepared an early first draft of the Danish priority application in

the fall of 2004 under instructions and guidance from Dr. Pedersen and based on the explanation
that Dr. Rasmussen had received from Dr. Pedersen.

47.

Dr. Pedersen added a substantial amount of subject matter to this draft. Dr.

Pedersen and Dr. Rasmussen jointly drafted theclaims contained in the Danish priority
application, although Dr. Pedersen took the lead in this process.

48.

These claims were laterreviewed at Dr. Pedersen's initiative and expense by

European PatentAttorney Jesper Thorsen of the Inspicos A/S patent bureau.

49.

On November 22,2004, Dr. Rasmussen filed the Danish priority application. The

filing fee was paid for by Dr. Pedersen.
50. On or about March 23, 2005, Dr. Pedersen and Dr. Rasmussen executed a written

agreement, formalizing theirearlier verbal agreement, pursuant to which Dr. Rasmussen agreed to assign to Dr. Pedersen full title and ownership of the Danish priority application and all
subsequent patent applications related thereto.

51.

After the filing of the Danish priority application, Dr. Pedersen began drafting the

PCT application with the assistance of European patent counsel, particularly European Patent
Attorney Lars Hallander from Ploughman & Vingtoft A/S patent bureau.

52.

Dr. Rasmussen did not contribute in any substantive way to the preparation of the

PCT application.

53.

When Dr. Rasmussen reviewed Dr. Pedersen's draft of the PCTapplication, he

expressed concern thatDr. Pedersen had unreasonably expanded the scope of the PCT application well beyond the Danish priority application and thatthis heightened the chance that
Dr. Pedersen's role would be revealed and found impermissible. Dr. Rasmussen felt that Dr.
Pedersen had exploited their arrangement and asked Dr. Pedersen to remove this additional
material.

10

54.

Dr. Pedersen provided additional references that he asserted disclosed the

elements to which Dr. Rasmussen objected, though Dr. Rasmussen's reservations remained.

55.

Dr. Pedersen proceeded to file the PCT application over Dr. Rasmussen's

objections and without removing the aforementioned additional material.

56.

Thereafter, their previously close contact subsided.

57.

Dr. Pedersen proceeded to pursue patent protection in numerous jurisdictions,

including at the European Patent Office and in the United States, without Dr. Rasmussen's

substantive involvement. These efforts resulted in the current stateof the Patent Family, each
member of which currently lists Dr. Rasmussen as the sole inventor.

58.

Particularly, Dr. Pedersen caused to be filed U.S. Patent Application Serial

Number 11/719,846 ("the '846 application," which eventually issued as the '381 patent) on April
29,2009.

59.

Dr. Rasmussen does not believe that he is the inventor of the invention covered by

the Danish priority application or the inventions covered by the remainder of the Patent Family.
He believes that Dr. Pedersen is the inventor of these inventions.

Dr. Pedersen Fraudulently Induces Nuevolution To Enter Into A License Agreement.

60.

Following publication of the Danish priority application in the spring of 2006, it

came to the attention of Nuevolution that Dr. Rasmussen had filed a patent application directed
to methods within Nuevolution's technological field. Nuevolution also learned that Dr. Pedersen

and Dr. Rasmussen were personal friends, and that Dr. Pedersen had been involved in preparing
the patent application naming Dr. Rasmussen as an inventor.

61.

When confronted, Dr. Pedersen misrepresented to Nuevolution that Dr.

Rasmussen was indeed the sole inventor of the claimed subject matter, and that Dr. Pedersen's

11

contributions had merely consisted of furnishing Dr. Rasmussen with material from the public

domain. Dr. Pedersen knew that, in truth, he was the sole inventor of the claimed subject matter.

62.

Faced with the prospect that patents outside of Nuevolution's control could pose a

risk of reducing Nuevolution's scope of freedom to operate, Nuevolution engaged in licensing
negotiations with Dr. Pedersen. In these negotiations, Dr. Pedersen represented Chemgene was
the assignee of the Danish priorityapplication and related applications.

63.

The result of the negotiations was a 2007 agreement ("the '07 agreement"), by

which Nuevolution was granted a license from Chemgene. Nuevolution further agreed not to
contest the inventorship of the Danish priority and PCT applications and provided Pedersen with
financial compensation of DKK 900,000.00.

64.

Nuevolution entered into this agreement due to the fraudulent representation by

Dr. Pedersen that Dr. Rasmussen had in fact independently conceived of the subject matter of the
Patent Family and thus Dr. Pedersen was not underan obligation to assign the patents to
Nuevolution.

65.

Dr. Pedersen intended in his misrepresentations to induce Nuevolution to enter

such an agreement.

66.

Nuevolution did not know thereal facts surrounding the inventorship of the Patent

Family until 2013.

67.

The '07 agreement is null and void due to Dr. Pedersen's fraudulent

misrepresentations. In addition, Dr. Pedersen's conduct alleged herein entitles Nuevolution to
revoke the '07 agreement.

12

Nuevolution Learns The Truth As To The True Inventor Of The Patent Family.

68.

In June 2011, Dr. Pedersen and/or Chemgene filed additional claims for the '856

application with the USPTO. In September 2011, the USPTO rejected these new claims. In
November 2011, Dr. Pedersen and/or Chemgene removed the new claims from the '856
application.

69.

In late March or early April of 2012, Nuevolution became aware that the issuance

of the '856 application was approaching and thus the window to file a continuation application
claiming benefit of the '856 application was imminently about to expire.
70. Nuevolution approached Dr. Pedersen and inquired whether he intended to file a

continuation application, and if not, if he would consent to Nuevolution to file such an

application in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

71.
72.

Dr. Pedersen consented to Nuevolution to file a continuation application.
Nuevolution filed the '236 application on April 9,2012 on the basis of Dr.

Pedersen's consent and in accordance with the '07 agreement.

73.

Thereafter, Defendants adopted the position that Nuevolution's filing constituted

a breach of the '07 agreement and that the '07 agreement was thereby revoked.
74. Defendants also demanded additional terms and financial compensation and

threatened to seek an injunction prohibiting Nuevolution from practicing the claimed subject
matter of the Patent Family.
75. In response to this demand, Nuevolution offered that Dr. Pedersen could take over

the continuation himself, or permit Nuevolution to continue prosecution of the application in accordance with his prior consent and the '07 agreement. Dr. Pedersen refused both options.

13

76.

When Nuevolution expressed to Dr. Pedersen that the demanded level of

compensation was unacceptable, Dr. Pedersen informed Nuevolution that he was no longer
willing to negotiate.

77.

Faced with a threat of reducedscope of freedom to operate by Nuevolution's own

formeremployee, Nuevolution was forced to institute legal proceedings against Defendants in
Denmark in December of 2012.

78.

After Nuevolution brought suit against Defendants in Denmark, Defendants

caused to be filed the '789 application.

79.
patent rights.

Nuevolution caused to be filed the '896 application in order to protect its potential

80.

In theongoing proceedings in Denmark, Nuevolution is now - following new

disclosures by Dr. Rasmussen - claiming, inter alia, thatin accordance with ordinary Danish law as well as Dr. Pedersen's employment contract with Nuevolution, Nuevolution is the rightful
owner of the Patent Family.

81.

Following the institution of these proceedings, Nuevolution met with Dr.

Rasmussen on multiple occasions to discuss thefactual circumstances surrounding the patents
and applications listing him as an inventor.

82.

It was through these discussions that Nuevolution learned the facts alleged in

paragraphs 21 through 60 above, including that Dr. Pedersen, not Dr. Rasmussen, was the sole

inventor of the inventive concepts captured by the Patent Family.
83. Dr. Rasmussen now acknowledges that he is not the inventor of the Danish

priority application or any member of the Patent Family. Dr. Rasmussen believes that Dr.

Pedersen is the sole inventorof the inventions coveredby the Danish priority application and the

14

remainder of the Patent Family. Dr. Rasmussen is instituting these legal proceedings to mitigate
and ameliorate the damage to his reputation that has been caused by him being listed as the
inventor on the patents covered by the Patent Family.

84.

Nuevolution brings the present action to correct the inventorship and take

ownership of the U.S. patents-in-suit, as well as seek remedies for the multitude of harms inflicted on Nuevolution by Defendants' willful misconduct.
COUNTI

Correction of Inventorship Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256

85.
herein.

Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations as set forth above as if setforth fully

86.

Dr. Pedersen alone conceived of the subject matter described and claimed in the

U.S. patents-in-suit.

87.

Dr. Rasmussen did not independently conceive of the subject matter described

and claimed in the U.S. patents-in-suit.

88.

The inventorship of the '381 patent and '236, '789, and '896 applications must be

corrected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 to substitute Dr. Pedersen for Dr. Rasmussen as the sole
inventor.

COUNT II

Conversion - Asserted by Nuevolution Only
89.
fully herein.

Nuevolution repeats and reiterates the allegations as set forth above as if set forth

90.

Pursuant to both the Danish Inventor's Act and his employment contract, at the

time of hisconception of the subject matter of the Patent Family, Dr. Pedersen was under an

15

obligation to assign inventions in his field of work to Nuevolution. Thus, Nuevolution is entitled

to undivided ownership and possession rights in the U.S. patents-in-suit.

91.

Defendants wrongfully exercised dominion over the intellectual property of

Nuevolution by, inter alia, causing Dr. Rasmussen to be named as the sole inventor of the Patent

Family and assign his rights in the Patent Family to Dr. Pedersen and, thereafter, Dr. Pedersen's
assignment of rights in the same to Chemgene.

92.

Defendants' interference deprived Nuevolution of its rightful possession and use

of the U.S. patents-in-suit, particularly its ability to freely operate within the scope of the U.S.
patents-in-suit and monetize the same.

93.

Furthermore, Defendants' misconduct caused significant injury to Nuevolution,

by at leastdepriving Nuevolution of the right to direct prosecution of the U.S. patents-in-suit, by jeopardizing the validity and enforceability of the U.S. patents-in-suit, by preventing
Nuevolution from monetizing its rights, and by causing Nuevolution to treat with Defendants and

pay to Dr. Pedersen a significant sum of money in fraudulently induced settlement.
COUNT III

Unjust Enrichment - Asserted by Nuevolution Only
94.
fully herein.

Nuevolution repeats and reiterates the allegations as set forth above as if set forth

95.
property.

Defendants benefited from their misappropriation of Nuevolution's intellectual

96.

Specifically, Dr. Pedersen was provided monetary compensation in the '07

agreement and continues to monetarily benefit from avoidance of his obligation to assign the
U.S. patents-in-suit to Nuevolution.

16

97.

Chemgene has benefited from its ownership of the intellectual property rightfully

belonging to Nuevolution.

98.

Nuevolution has been substantially harmed by Defendants' actions. Thus far, it

has been denied its rightful ownership, and accompanying plentiful benefits, of the U.S. patentsin-suit whose subjectmatter was developed by Dr. Pedersen during a time when he was under a

duty to assign these ideas, inventions and any patent rights to Nuevolution. The validity and
enforceability of the patents stemming from Dr. Pedersen's misappropriation of its intellectual property have also been threatened. Furthermore, Nuevolution's freedom to operate has been
placed into question by Dr. Pedersen and Chemgene without any merit. Nuevolution has been

forced, while acting in its corporate interests, to pay Dr. Pedersen and/orChemgene a significant
monetary sum. Due to Dr. Pedersen's systematic, demonstrably false statements and

misrepresentations, Nuevolution has incurred various legal and extra-legal expenses related to
the U.S. patents-in-suit.

99.

Dr. Pedersen intentionally developed an elaborate scheme by which to

misappropriate Nuevolution's intellectual property for his and Chemgene's direct benefit.
100. Therefore, equity strongly demands that Nuevolution be made whole for the

damages inflicted by Dr. Pedersen and Chemgene.
RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Nuevolution A/S and Peter Birk Rasmussen respectfully
requests:

i.

An orderfor correction of the inventorship, completely substituting Henrik

Pedersen for the presently named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,168,381;

17

ii.

An order for correction of the inventorship, completely substituting Henrik

Pedersen for the presently named inventor of Application Serial No. 13/442,236;

iii.

An orderfor correction of the inventorship, completely substituting Henrik

Pedersen for the presently named inventor of Application Serial No. 14/067,789;

iv.

An orderfor correction of the inventorship, completely substituting Henrik

Pedersen for the presently named inventor of Application Serial No. 14/230,896;

v.

A declaration that Nuevolution is the sole and complete owner of the '381 patent

and '236, '789 and '896 applications, and any subsequent applications in the United States;

vi.

Monetary damages relating to the U.S. patents-in-suit, accruing to Nuevolution in

an amount to be determined at trial, together with pre-judgmentand post-judgment interest on
such damages;

vii.
viii.

Punitive damages accruing to Nuevolution, relating to the U.S. patents-in-suit;
Attorney's fees, costs, and interest, relating to the U.S. patents-in-suit; and

ix.

Any andall other and further monetary or equitable reliefas this Court deems just

and proper under the patent laws of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.

Submitted: April 4, 2014

18

Respectfully submitted:

^/^^
Sara E. Kropf (Va. Bar No. 84931) Law Office of Sara Kropf PLLC
1001 G Street, NW
Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001 (202) 627-6900
Counsel to Nuevolution A/S

Ridiard L. Beizer (Va. ar No. 02646) Crowell & Moring L.L 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 624-2500
Counsel to Peter Birk Rasmussen

19