Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PIECZENIK v. CAMBRIDGE ANTIBODY TECHNOLOGY GROUP

March 16, 2004.

GEORGE PIECZENIK, Plaintiff, -against-, CAMBRIDGE ANTIBODY TECHNOLOGY GROUP, DOMANUS, MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, AN AGENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, and THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND DRUGS, Defendants


The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Dr. George Pieczenik, appearing pro se, brings this action against multiple defendants, alleging patent infringement, patent invalidity, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") claims.*fn1 Defendants Domantis Inc. and Cambridge Antibody Technology Group plc ("CAT") (collectively "defendants") now move to dismiss the action against them for lack of personal Page 2 jurisdiction.*fn2 In the alternative, defendants move to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim.*fn3 Pieczenik counters with a series of papers styled "Cross Motions," seeking dismissal of defendants' motions citing their "failure to comply with Local Rules 12.1 and S6.2."*fn4 For the reasons that follow, defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are granted and Pieczenik's cross motions are denied.

 I. FACTS

  A. The Moving Defendants Page 3 Domantis Inc. is a Delaware corporation that employs four people and has its only office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.*fn5 Domantis Inc. is a subsidiary of Domantis Limited, which is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.*fn6 CAT is an English company, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Cambridge, England.*fn7

  B. Jurisdictional Allegations

  1. Domantis Inc.

  Pieczenik alleges that Domantis Inc. licenses rights under its phage display patents in "New York, the United States, and the world," thereby Page 4 infringing and contributing to infringement of his `363 and `448 patents.*fn8 Domantis Inc. counters that it does not "engage in any research or licensing activities in New York."*fn9

  2. CAT

  a. License Agreements

  Pieczenik alleges that CAT, like Domantis Inc., infringes and contributes to the infringement of his patents by licensing rights in "New York, the United States, and the world."*fn10 CAT identifies several license agreements that it has with New York entities: (1) a 1995 license and royalty agreement with Pfizer Inc., "a Delaware corporation that has an address in New York"; (2) a 1999 Page 5 research and licensing agreement with G.D. Searle & Co., an Illinois company that was eventually acquired by Pfizer Inc.; and (3) a 1996 agreement with New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York.*fn11 None of these agreements were negotiated in New York or are governed by New York law, and only the third agreement required CAT to send materials and/or technology to New York.*fn12 CAT also states that it transferred a therapeutic product candidate — Trabio(tm) — to two locations in New York, for use in clinical trials.*fn13

  b. Other Contacts

  Pieczenik also offers many general jurisdictional allegations, scattered throughout his various submissions to the Court. First, he asserts that CAT is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by a former shareholder, Continental Venture Capital Limited ("CVC"), in New York state court.*fn14 Second, he points to the fact that CAT listed a New York investment banker as a "contact person for the Subscription Agreement for raising money in both its initial subscription Page 6 offering to the present."*fn15 Third, CAT has purportedly entered into contracts with companies and individuals, located or doing business in New York, such as Dyax and Bristol-Myers Squibb."*fn16 Fourth, Genzyme Corp., a company with "a continuous presence in Yonkers, New York as Genzyme Genetics," purportedly owns 11.28% of CAT.*fn17 Fifth, CAT maintains its American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") in the Bank of New York, and is "required to continually monitor those assets either by phone, internet and/or mail."*fn18 Aggregating the foregoing allegations, Pieczenik concludes that "[t]he bacteriophage that CAT uses comes from NY, the ideas come from New Yorker, the legal solutions come from New York. The only thing not from New York at CAT is the chutzpah and the accent."*fn19 Page 7

 II. APPLICABLE LAW

  A. Local Rules 12.1 and 56.2

  Rule 12.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts> of New York provides that "[a] represented party moving to dismiss . . . against a party proceeding pro se, who refers in support of the motion to matters outside the pleadings as described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) . . ., shall serve and file the notice required by Local Civil Rule 56.2 at the time the motion is served." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), in turn, references "matters outside the pleadings" only in the context of "a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."*fn20 Local Rule 56.2 provides that "[a]ny represented party moving for summary judgment against a party proceeding pro se shall serve and file as a separate document, together with the papers in support of a motion, a "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion For Summary Judgment" in the form indicated [in the rule]." Page 8

  Local Rule 12.1, read in conjunction with Rule 12(b) and Local Rule 56.2, requires that a represented party moving for summary judgment against a pro se litigant apprise that litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to the motion. Local Rule 12.1 is intended to satisfy the prerequisites in this Circuit for granting a motion for summary judgment in a case involving a pro se litigant. Specifically, a court may not grant a summary judgment motion where one of the litigants is unrepresented unless: "(1) the court apprises the pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to the motion, (2) an opposing party has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.