Prior to the filing of the Purdue patent in question, Dr. Spievack met Dr. Badylak at a conference where Badylak made a presentation on submucosa of the small intestine (SIS). Shortly thereafter, Dr. Spievack began experiments working with bladder tissue and successfully treated a poison ivy outbreak on his own leg with a composition derived from that same bladder wall. Later, the courts found that this is the point in time that Dr. Spievack completed his invention.
Subsequently, Dr. Spievack shared the results of his work with Dr. Badylak, but only after Dr. Badylak filed for the Purdue patent. Then they maintained regular communication about Dr. Spievack's research. Dr. Spievack tried to acquire licensure from Purdue strictly for work on the non-SIS products that had been developed. When he was rejected, he continued with his own research, concentrating on urinary bladder matrix (UBM).
Three years later, Purdue dismissed Dr. Badylak and filed suit against him, Dr. Spievack, and ACell. No damages were awarded, and ultimately, the courts found that there had been no patent infringement, but at what cost to the inventors, their research efforts, the University reputation and the public overall?