Litigation Details for Degui Chen v. Michael E. Jung (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Degui Chen v. Michael E. Jung (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Docket		Date Filed	2018-03-12
Court	District Court, C.D. California	Date Terminated	2019-11-06
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Robert G. Klausner
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	Karen L. Stevenson
Parties	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY
Patents	7,709,517; 8,183,274; 8,445,507; 8,802,689; 9,126,941; 9,388,159
Attorneys	Joseph E Cwik
Firms	Scheper Kim and Harris LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Degui Chen v. Michael E. Jung (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2018-03-12				External link to document
2018-03-12	1	Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)	following 11 patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,709,517 (“the ’517 Patent”), 7,718,684 (“the ’684 Patent”), 8,034,548…respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,445,507 (“the ’507 Patent”), 8,802,689 (“the ’689 Patent”), and 6 9,… (“the ’548 Patent”), 8,183,274 (“the ’274 Patent”), and 9,126,941 (“the ’941 Patent”). (Ex. F). 13…Director for Patents of the United States Patent and Trademark 26 Office to correct U.S. Patent No. 8,445,507…Director for Patents of the United States Patent and Trademark 2 Office to correct U.S. Patent No. 8,802,689	External link to document
2018-03-12	94	Statement of Contested Facts and Conclusions of Law	“U.S. Patent No. 5 patent.” According to Dr. Ouk’s statement in the 8,445,507”); 6 … asset, US Patent 8 Inventorship for A51/A52 Patents.” (emphasis 8,445,507 Inventorship… “U.S. Patent No. 6 lunch table at the ‘bomb shelter’ (a lunch area) at 8,445,507”); …and “U.S. Patent No. 3 had “nuanced understanding” or any “inventive 8,445,507”); 4 …and “U.S. Patent No. 15 know about A51 as of early November of 2005. 8,445,507”);	External link to document
2018-03-12	96	Declaration (Motion related)	26 subject line “Aragon Asset, US Patent No. 8,445,507 Inventorship” bearing the 27 Bates…true and correct copy of excerpts of U.S. 28 Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0077605 A1,…2018 6 November 2019 2:18-cv-02015 830 Patent None District Court, C.D. California	External link to document
2018-03-12	254	Judgment	Degui Chens claim for inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 8,445,507 is dismissed with prejudice. (2) Plaintiff…Chen’s claim for inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 5 8,445,507 is dismissed with prejudice. 6 …Plaintiff Degui Chens claim for inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 8,802,689 is dismissed with prejudice. (3) …Plaintiff Degui Chens claim for inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 9,388,159 is dismissed with prejudice. (jp)…Plaintiff Degui Chen’s claim for inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 7 8,802,689 is dismissed with prejudice.	External link to document

Degui Chen v. Michael E. Jung: A Comprehensive Litigation Summary and Analysis

Case Overview

The case of Degui Chen v. Michael E. Jung is a civil patent litigation that was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and later appealed to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Here is a detailed summary and analysis of the key aspects of this case.

Background and Parties Involved

• Plaintiff: Degui Chen
• Defendants: Michael E. Jung, Charles L. Sawyers, Samedy Ouk, Christopher Tran, and John Wongvipat
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-04307 (District Court), 0:20-cv-01257 (Federal Circuit)[1][5].

Nature of the Suit

The lawsuit revolves around patent rights, specifically involving chemical compounds developed by the defendants aimed at treating prostate cancer. The nature of the suit is categorized under "Property Rights - Patent" (Nature of Suit Code 830)[1].

Key Issues and Claims

• Patent Infringement: The primary issue in this case is whether the defendants infringed on patents held by Degui Chen related to the chemical compounds they developed for prostate cancer treatment.
• Ownership and Rights: There were disputes over the ownership and rights to the patents in question, which is a common theme in patent litigation cases[4].

Procedural History

• District Court: The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The district court proceedings involved motions and rulings that ultimately led to an appeal.
• Federal Circuit Appeal: The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where it was assigned the case number 0:20-cv-01257. The appeal was filed on December 17, 2019, and the case was terminated on September 16, 2020[1].

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

During the district court proceedings, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. This denial was significant as it allowed the case to proceed to trial or further appeal. The motion was denied because the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be resolved through further litigation[4].

Appeal and Termination

The appeal to the Federal Circuit involved a review of the district court's decisions. However, the case was terminated on September 16, 2020, without a detailed opinion from the Federal Circuit. This termination could be due to various reasons such as settlement, dismissal, or other procedural resolutions[1].

Legal Implications and Precedents

• Patent Law: This case highlights the complexities and challenges in patent litigation, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. It underscores the importance of clear ownership and rights to intellectual property.
• Judicial Review: While this case did not reach a final judgment from the Federal Circuit, it is part of a broader landscape of patent litigation where judicial review plays a crucial role in determining the validity and infringement of patents.

Expert Insights and Industry Impact

In patent litigation cases, the expertise of legal professionals and the specific knowledge of the industry are crucial. For example, in cases involving chemical compounds, understanding the scientific and technical aspects is essential for making informed legal arguments.

"Patent litigation in the pharmaceutical sector is highly complex and often involves intricate scientific and legal arguments. The outcome of such cases can significantly impact the development and commercialization of new treatments," said a legal expert in intellectual property law.

Statistics and Trends

Patent litigation cases are on the rise, particularly in the technology and pharmaceutical sectors. According to recent trends, the number of patent cases filed in U.S. district courts has been increasing, reflecting the growing importance of intellectual property in innovation-driven industries.

Key Takeaways

• Patent Ownership: Clear ownership and rights to patents are critical in avoiding disputes.
• Judicial Review: The role of judicial review in patent litigation is pivotal in ensuring the integrity of the patent system.
• Industry Impact: Patent litigation can significantly affect the development and commercialization of new treatments and technologies.
• Legal Complexity: Patent cases often involve complex scientific and legal arguments, requiring specialized expertise.

FAQs

1. What was the main issue in the Degui Chen v. Michael E. Jung case? The main issue was patent infringement related to chemical compounds developed for treating prostate cancer.

2. Which court initially heard the case? The case was initially heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

3. What was the outcome of the defendants' motion for summary judgment? The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied by the district court.

4. Why was the case terminated in the Federal Circuit? The case was terminated on September 16, 2020, but the specific reasons for termination are not detailed in the available records.

5. How does this case reflect broader trends in patent litigation? This case reflects the complexity and importance of patent litigation in innovation-driven industries, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector.

Sources

1. PacerMonitor - Chen v. Jung (0:20-cvpri-01257)
2. Supreme Court of the United States - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (unrelated case, but context on judicial review)
3. Cornell University Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology - Song Lin (unrelated, but context on chemical research)
4. PatentDocs - Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
5. Casetext - Degui Chen v. Jung, 2020-1257