In 1992, Dr. Townsend was on faculty at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. He was already in collaboration with Dr. Nutt on various projects in the PET technology field when the University of Pittsburgh came knocking at his door.

Dr. Mark Mintun, Director of Pitt's PET facility, met with Townsend in London to lure him to the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Townsend had a reputation as a leading PET physicist and Pitt wanted someone with his experience.

The University was well aware of Dr. Townsend's collaboration with Dr. Nutt and CTI. This was the differentiator that, to some extent, set him apart from others in his field.

Prior to moving to Pitt, Dr. Townsend and Dr. Nutt had already conceived the combined PET/CT scanner. In fact, Dr. Mintun also met with Dr. Nutt to discuss the Townsend-Nutt-CTI collaboration prior to Pitt hiring Dr. Townsend.

Townsend disclosed to Mintun and the University of Pittsburgh that he had previously executed a consulting agreement with CTI PET Systems related to his work with Dr. Nutt on the combined scanner and other PET-related projects. The University never asked for a copy of the agreement or for Dr. Townsend to disclose the terms of the agreement.

Due diligence called for the TTO to review Townsend's consulting agreement with CPS as well as the annual conflict of interest documents he submitted each year, as required by the University.

Under that consulting agreement, Dr. Townsend received monthly payments from CTI PET Systems related to his work for them. He revealed this to Pitt and asked CTI to forward his payments to Pitt instead of him personally.

The payments were not recorded in the University's books as relating to Townsend's consultancy with CPS. Instead, they were booked each month as a "gift" to the University from CPS.

Although the documents and payments submitted to the University substantiated CTI's ownership of the innovation, Pitt claimed that they had been misled by Townsend, Nutt and CPS.

Of the decade's worth of disclosure documents that Dr. Townsend had executed at Pitt's request, only the last few years were produced for the court by the University. Acknowledging the existence of these files from his hire date and forward would contradict the premise that they had been deceived by Townsend and Nutt.

In July of 1999, Townsend completed the required Invention Disclosure Form, listing both himself and Dr. Nutt as co-inventors of the PET/CT scanner and that CPS was potentially interested in the device.

When CTI PET Systems' patent attorneys filed patent applications for the method and mechanics of the PET/CT scanner, Pitt was copied and the applications listed Townsend and Nutt as inventors and CTI as the assignee of the technology. The University of Pittsburgh was mentioned in the patent filing, but not as a beneficiary of the patent or intellectual property. The Office of Technology Management received all of these documents and issued no complaint.

In court Pitt alleged that they had been unaware of the development of the product and the patent application process and that the actions of the defendants was tantamount to conspiracy.

While Pitt asserted that the Townsend/Nutt collaboration had caused it financial harm, in fact, they had received equipment worth millions, consulting fees, prestige, publication and numerous other benefits courtesy of CTI and the inventors. And, in exchange for conducting the clinical trials of the prototype PET/CT scanner CTI built, Pitt was paid a fee of $350,000 by Nutt's company.

The upshot is, with other nearly identical devices in development, there was no potential for Pitt to license a patent for this technology, despite their allegations of lost revenues. Siemens, GE and Philips all produced and sold PET/CT scanners without a licensing agreement.

At every turn, Townsend, Nutt and CTI operated transparently and kept Pitt informed of the status of the research, development, testing and patent application status. It is understandable that when Dr. Townsend heard Pitt had filed the lawsuit, he was "shocked that they went ahead with this fabricated case."

By acting outside its own policies and guidelines and not exercising due diligence, Pitt's Office of Technology Management was careless. The lawsuit vindicated the inventors and failed to rewrite history in Pitt's favor.