Facts

Plaintiff developed and patented a method of doing in vivo imaging of tumor cells in laboratory animals using green fluorescent protein (GFP). The technology is useful to pharmaceutical companies doing drug research. Defendant developed a similar, but distinct, technology for doing in vivo imaging in laboratory animals. In 2000, one of plaintiff's customers (a large multinational pharmaceutical firm) terminated its contracts with plaintiff and signed a lucrative contract with defendant. Plaintiff attributed these and other events to defendant's false disparagement of plaintiff's patented technology and business practices.

On Aug. 9, 2001, plaintiff filed an action for trade libel and other business torts in the Superior Court in San Diego. Defendant removed the case to federal court, but the federal court remanded the action to the Superior Court. During the pendency of the Superior Court action, plaintiff also sued defendant in U.S. District Court for damages and other relief arising from alleged patent infringement and invalidity. Defendant cross-complained against plaintiff in the federal court action, also alleging damages and other relief arising from alleged patent infringement and invalidity.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In the Superior Court action, plaintiff claimed that defendant had falsely disparaged its patented technology and business practices; intentionally interfered with its contracts and with its prospective economic advantages; and unfairly competed.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions.

Settlement Discussions

Shortly before trial in the Superior Court action, the parties entered into global settlement discussions before U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Result

A settlement and limited release whereby defendant paid plaintiff $1 million in a lump sum in exchange for a limited release (carving out the federal court patent infringement claims) and a dismissal with prejudice of the Superior Court action.

Other Information

Before the case settled, plaintiff successfully resisted defendant's removal to federal court, multiple demurrers, anti-SLAPP motion, appeal from denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, motion to strike plaintiff's damages allegations, and motion for summary judgment.