Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alexandria Division
)
) )
v.
)
)
)
LJY}>
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1.
The Complaint seeks damages for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, 15
U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as well as various state court causes of action under Virginia law, related
to the alleged infringement or misappropriation of Plaintiffs intellectual property, including trade secrets and patent infringement. See Complaint, attached hereto. For these alleged
violations, Plaintiff seeks $6,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages in the
amount of S300,000.00. Complaint H48(c).
2.
under the Commonwealth of Virginia. Complaint, 1| 1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs
3.
Advanced is alleged to be, and at all times relevant hereto is and has been, a
limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Illinois. Its sole member is an
Illinois limited liability company. Thus, for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, Advanced is a citizen of the state of Illinois. See Complaint ^| 2.
4. On or about February 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court for
5.
Advanced has not been formally served with the Complaint, but received a copy
7.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 as
Plaintiffs claims of patent infringement arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq.
8. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 as
Plaintiff and Defendant are not citizens of the same state and the amount in controversy exceeds
575,000.00.
9.
1446.
Removal of this action is timely and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and
10.
11.
Removal has been provided promptly to the Clerk ofthe Circuit Court for Fairfax County.
12. A copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon Advanced in this action
13.
The initial Complaint did not seek a trial by jury and Advanced has not yet
By Counsel,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal (Federal) was sent
via regular mail, postage prepaid, on this -^ ' day of March, 2012 to:
James N. Markels, Esquire Jackson & Campbell, P.C.
soc
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
(PresO.Preu 1)
TO:
The party upon whom this summons and the attached complaint and motion are served is
hereby notified that unless within 21 days after such service, response is made by filing in the Clerk's office ofthis Court apleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be taken as admitted and the court may enter an order, judgment or
decree against such party cither by default orafter hearing evidence.
APPEARANCE IN PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED BY THIS SUMMONS.
Deputy Clerk
VIRGINIA:
20 12
Civil No.
02925
ADVANCED CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ADVANCED CLINICAL, 10 Parkway North, Suite 350, Dccrfield, Illinois 60015,
SERVE ON:
Secretary of the Commonwealth, Service of Process Department, Post Office Box 2452, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2452,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, RHT Consulting, LLC ("RHT"), by and through its
undersigned counsel, and, for this Complaint to seek an injunction preventing the Defendant,
Advanced Clinical Services, LLC d/b/a Advanced Clinical ("Advanced Clinical") from violating
RHT's contractual and patent rights to the process and framework known as Industry Leading
Research and Development Performance ("ILRDP") as well as other RHT-owned intellectual
property, and damages resulting from such violations, and in support thereof states and alleges as
follows:
1.
RHT is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
2.
Advanced Clinical is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the
State of Illinois.
3.
The contract at issue in this case specifically designates the "state or federal courts
4.
Personal jurisdiction over Advanced Clinical is founded under Va. Code 8.01 328.1, as well as the subject contract.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5.
With the goal of improving Life Sciences (pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics and device) companies' business and shareholder success, RHT
which Life Sciences companies can select theright Research and Development
(R&D) investments (e.g., drugs, devices, diagnostics, biologies, vaccines, etc.),
streamline their subsequent development, and increase product quality and
success rates while reducing costs.
6.
RHT also developed several pieces of intellectual property that Advanced Clinical
is advertising on its website as it relates to optimizing clinical trial success
through Contract Research Outsourcing services.
7.
8.
By itsexplicit terms, the NDA protected from use and disclosure any confidential
anticipation that the parties would later enter into a business engagement whereby
RHT would provide consulting services to Advanced Clinical.
9.
Specifically, the NDA provides that Advanced Clinical would not use any
confidential informationdisclosed by RHT "(a) for its own benefit or that of a
third parry; (b) to [RHT's] detriment; or (c) in any manner other than to perform
the (anticipated] Engagement."
10.
The NDA also provides that "all applicable intellectual property rights embodied
in the Confidential Information shall remain the property ofthe Disclosing Party."
11. From November 5. 2009, toApril 13, 2011, RITT provided consulting services to
Advanced Clinical. During this time, RHT provided confidential information to
Advanced Clinical, including information about ILRDP. Advanced Clinical stored
12.
value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being
readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts thatare reasonable
under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, including the NDA. The workings
of ILRDP are housed in an Excel file with software coding and a Word document.
RHT has not provided a working version ofILRDP's Excel file to any other party
except Advanced Clinical and RHT's team, all of whom have also signed non
disclosure agreements.
13.
14.
ILRDP is a trade secret as defined under Va. Code 59.1-336, et seq. RHT has
obtained a provisional patent over ILRDP as ofJuly 6, 2011, a true and accurate
enter into any other contract that superseded, negated, or modified the terms of the
NDA.
16.
On or about April 13,2011, RHT gave 30 days' written notice of termination of its business relationship with Advanced Clinical.
17.
Pursuant to the NDA, RHT demanded that Advanced Clinical remove all mention
of ILRDP from its websites and advertising, delete all ILRDP information from its
computers, and return any such information to RHT.
18.
To date, Advanced Clinical has refused to comply with RHT's requests, and
continues to advertise on its website and elsewhere that it can deliver ILRDP to
19.
similarly derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by propermeans by, other
persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the
subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its
secrecy, including the NDA. This intellectual property qualifies as trade secrets as
defined under Va. Code 59.1-336, etseq.
COUNT I - Breach of Contract
20.
RHT adopts and incorporates by reference all allegationscontained within paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
21.
22.
Advanced Clinical's unauthorized use and possession of ILRDP, as well as all other intellectual property belonging to RHT, violates the express termsof the
NDA.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
provided a copy of ILRDP to a contractor who was not subject to RHT's NDA. 29. Advanced Clinical, without authorization and in violation of the NDA, also has a
copy of ILRDP on their server/hosting provider's server.
30.
31.
Clinical, and wrongly implies that RHT sponsors or approves Advanced Clinical's
32.
33.
possess, use, and create copies of ILRDP and other intellectual property without
authorization and in violation of the NDA.
35.
36.
Advanced Clinical's actions with regard to ILRDP are in violation of Va. Code
18.2-152.4(A)(6).
37.
38.
COUNT FV - Violation of Virginia Trade Secrets Act. Va. Code S 59.1-336. etsea.
39.
RHT adopts and incorporates by referenceall allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
40.
Advanced Clinical's violations ofthe NDA and continued improper possession and use of ILRDP and other intellectual property constitute misappropriation ofRHT's
trade secrets pursuant to Va, Code 59.1-336,et seq.
41.
Advanced Clinical's misappropriation was made in bad faith, and/or was willful and
malicious in nature.
42.
Asa direct result of themisappropriation of RHT's trade secret rights to ILRDP and
other intellectual property, RHThas suffered damages.
43.
44.
RHT is entitled to itsreasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Va. Code 59.1 -338.1.
COUNT V - Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
45.
RHT adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained within paragraphs I through 44 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
46.
47.
The prejudice suffered by RHT if Advanced Clinical is permitted to continue to use, sell, market, or distribute ILRDP is far greaterthan any prejudice Advanced
Clinical might suffer if an injunction is issued to prevent such unauthorized uses
until such time has this matter is heard on the merits.
48.
property in its possession, custody, or control to RHT, destroy and/or delete any
other such materials, and remove all mention of ILRDP as well as all of RHT's
a.
That this Court issue a preliminary injunction preventing Advanced Clinical from
violating RHT's rights over ILRDP as well as all ofRHT's intellectual property until such time
as a final order is entered in this case and all appeals, if any, resolved;
b.
Advanced Clinical from retaining, using, advertising, or otherwise possessing ILRDP as well as
all ofRHT's intellectual property in violation ofRHT's contractual and patent rights, and
ordering thatAdvanced Clinical return all such information and materials to RHT and
remove/delete such information and materials from all computers, hard-copy files, websites,
social media, advertising, and communications within the possession, custody, orcontrol of
Advanced Clinical;
c.
That this Court award RHT compensatory damages in the amount ofSix Million
Dollars (S6,000,000.00), and pimitive damages in the amount of $300,000.00; d. That this Court award RHT its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
Respectfully submitted,
RHT CONSULTING, LLC
By Counsel:
JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C.
^.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone:(202)457-1600 Facsimile: (202) 457-1678 Counsel for Plaintiff