Our Mission Assistance Case Studies Press Room IPAO Forum
HOME : UGA Adams Controversy 1 : Allergan Plot Page 1 : Allergan Plot Page 3
1  2  3
 





Dr. Kaswan eventually did file a countersuit against UGARF and Allergan, claiming among other things, that Allergan tortiously interfered with her employment contract and fiduciary relationship with UGA, and that UGARF and Allergan fraudulently conspired to convey her property for an unreasonably low price.

The defense claimed UGARF had "sole discretion and total authority" to commercialize all faculty inventions. This contradicts university policy and the rightful participation of its inventor. They further cited the 1982 and 1995 Administrative Agreements executed between UGA and the Georgia Board of Regents which gave them complete authority over faculty innovations. These agreements are neither published nor circulated to faculty, but nonetheless were claimed to be binding contracts of adhesion for all faculty.

Judge Sweat ruled in favor of the defendants based upon outdated documents and the unpublished contracts instead of basing his decision on the published UGA Intellectual Property Policy. UGARF and Allergan claimed that explicit language in the UGA Invention Disclosure, Assignment agreement and Administrative Agreements overrode any implicit obligation of the university to act with "good will and fair dealings."

Judge Sweat said Allergan's Florida Plan was "sinister," but stopped short of calling it illegal. In his ruling, he said, "Well, your Florida Plan did explicitly describe a goal of the negotiations as removal of Doctor Kaswan from the picture. I mean that's in the record."

The case will be appealed and the court has recently begun to unseal documents in response to recent public and legislative outcry.

Dr. Kaswan believes her case has far reaching consequences. In a recent interview, the inventor said, "American innovation and economic advantage depends heavily on university faculty. If the appellate court determines that faculty inventors do not deserve a contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing from their university TCOs, it will set a grave precedent for inventors and the public that relies on them."

 

< Previous Page | Next Page >

 

 
IP Advocate.org Copyright 2019
                 
 
 
 


You are about to leave IPAdvocate.org and go to an outside website.

IPAdvocate.org does not control any outside website and is not responsible

for content, performance or policies, including Privacy Policy.

Thank you for visiting IPAdvocate.org.