(PS) CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 12, 2024·No. 2:17-cv-01895·Unknown

Opinion

CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION, No. 2:17-cv-01895-DAD-DB (PS) Plaintiff, v. TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER Defendant. Counter Claimant, v. Counter Defendant. On January 9, 2024, the court conducted a final pretrial conference in this case. Bryan J. Wilson and Yue Li appeared as counsel for plaintiff; defendant Dr. Zhixiang Hu appeared on behalf of himself. Having considered the parties’ joint pretrial statement and the views of the parties as expressed at the conference, the court issues this tentative pretrial order. This case arises from a dispute between a pharmaceutical research and development company—plaintiff and counter defendant CSPC Dophen Corporation—and its former 1 employee—defendant and counter claimant Dr. Zh ixiang Hu—who allegedly secretly incorporated a competing entity while still employed at CSPC Dophen Corporation, using CSPC Dophen’s d/b/a name “Dophen Biomed” and physical laboratory address. Plaintiff alleges that defendant misrepresented that Dophen Biomed was the same as CSPC Dophen and misappropriated CSPC Dophen’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and conversion. Dr. Hu’s counterclaims allege that the counter-defendant CSPC Dophen Corporation engaged in deceptive practices to unlawfully acquire Dr. Hu’s mTgase site-specific conjugation technology, promising him company ownership but failing to deliver on its commitments. Furthermore, Dr. Hu claims that CSPC Dophen defaulted on his rightful compensation, including salary, vacation pay, incentive stock shares, and stock dividends. Dr. Hu’s counterclaims are for breach of contract, violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., violation of California Labor Code § 203, and breach of fiduciary today. I. JURISDICTION/VENUE Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. Jurisdiction is not contested. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is not contested. Defendant Dr. Hu demanded a jury trial in the Joint Notice of Trial Readiness. (Doc. No. 323.) Plaintiff CSPC Dophen does not request a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors, although the court may adjust that number depending upon conditions in existence at the time of the trial. 1. Dr. Hu was an employee of CSPC Dophen. IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES1 1. Whether CSPC Dophen hired Dr. Hu in October 2011 as director of CSPC Dophen’s Laboratory at 4070 Truxel Road, Sacramento, California. 1 As discussed at the pretrial conference, if Dr. Hu intends to list additional disputed facts not already listed here, he may include them in his objections to this tentative pretrial order. However, the court reminds Dr. Hu that each fact should be listed in a concise, one-sentence format, not lengthy paragraphs, and should remain focused on factual content, not arguments. 2. Whether Dr. Hu’s employment agreement states “[a]ll CSPC employees are required to execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement and an Intellectual Property Agreement.” 3. Whether Dr. Hu signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) on April 4, 2013, which states: I will observe the strictest secrecy with respect to the Trade Secrets disclosed to me and all information generated therefrom and will take all affirmative steps necessary to maintain the trade secrets status of the Trade Secrets. I will neither make use of nor disclose to third parties the Trade Secrets, unless prior consent in writing is given by the Company during the terms of my employment with the Company and thereafter in any employment or business venture. I agree I will never, directly or indirectly, for myself or others, use disseminate, disclose, lecture upon, or otherwise make available to others any confidential information, whether or not such confidential information thereafter in whole or part becomes available to the public. My agent(s), servant(s), employer(s), employee(s) and all persons acting therefore also disclaim any claim of right in and to such confidential information. 4. Whether Dr. Hu also signed a Policy of Conflict of Interest on April 4, 2013, which states: I will not engage in any conduct which would create a potential or actual conflict of interest or create the appearance of such a conflict in my employment relationship with the Company. Such conduct includes, without limitation, divulging the Company’s trade secrets for my own personal gain, seek employment with the Company’s business competitors while still employed by the Company, usurping the business opportunity of the company and any other activity which may directly or indirectly harm the Company. 5. Whether, in April of 2014, while still employed by CSPC Dophen, Dr. Hu incorporated an entity called Dophen Biomed, Inc. and listed the address as 4070 Truxel Road, Sacramento, California. 6. Whether, Dophen Biomed, Inc.—founded by Dr. Hu—is affiliated with CSPC Dophen. 7. Whether Dr. Hu applied for grants from the National Institutes of Health in the name of Dophen Biomed, Inc. 8. Whether the National Institutes of Health grant filed by Dr. Hu under Dophen Biomed, Inc. included research data and results of the DP303c drug candidate. ///// 9. Whether Dr. Hu submitted an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application (IND #130699) to the Food and Drug Administration under the name Dophen Biomed, Inc. 10. Whether CSPC Dophen entered into valid contracts with Dr. Hu (including the employment agreement, NDA, and Conflict of Interest Policy). 11. Whether Dr. Hu took or used without authorization CSPC Dophen’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information. 12. Whether Dr. Hu prevented CSPC Dophen from accessing its email accounts. 13. Whether Dr. Hu misappropriated CSPC Dophen’s funds, including depositing CSPC Dophen’s revenues into Dophen Biomed, Inc.’s bank account. 14. Whether Dr. Hu incorporated Dophen Biomed, Inc., using CSPC Dophen’s d/b/a name and address and misrepresented that Dophen Biomed, Inc. was part of CSPC Dophen. 15. Whether Dr. Hu took or used without authorization CSPC Dophen’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information. 16. Whether Dr. Hu misappropriated CSPC Dophen’s funds, including depositing CSPC Dophen’s revenues into Dophen Biomed, Inc.’s bank account. 17. Whether Dr. Hu usurped the business opportunity of CSPC Dophen. 18. Whether CSPC Dophen owns confidential information relating to the drug candidate DP303c and antibody drug conjugates that derived independent economic value from not being generally known. 19. Whether CSPC Dophen took reasonable steps to protect its confidential information. 20. Whether Dr. Hu improperly acquired or used CSPC Dophen’s trade secrets without authorization. 21. Whether Dr. Hu’s misappropriation was willful and malicious. 22. Whether Dr. Hu took control over CSPC Dophen’s email, computers, storage devices, and payments from third parties without consent. 23. Whether Dr. Hu had an agreement with CSPC Dophen, not CSPC Limited, to award Dr. Hu stock in CSPC Limited. 24. If such agreement exists, whether Dr. Hu performed under this agreement, despite creating a competing entity using CSPC Dophen’s d/b/a name and misappropriating CSPC Dophen’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information. 25. Whether CSPC Dophen’s actions, not those of CSPC Limited, constituted unlawful or fraudulent business practices. 26. Whether CSPC Dophen willfully failed to pay Dr. Hu’s wages and unpaid vacation time on his last day of employment. 27. Whether CSPC Dophen, the employer, owed Dr. Hu, the employee, a fiduciary duty. 28. Whether CSPC-Dophen was registered by CSPC Limited in NJ and was doing business in California. 29. Whether Dr. Hu was a research manager at Novozymes at Davis, a wholly owned su

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PS) CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PS) CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu ((PS) CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
973 P.2d 527 (California Supreme Court, 1999)
Okura & Co. (America), Inc. v. Careau Group
783 F. Supp. 482 (C.D. California, 1991)
Hodge v. Superior Court
51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)