Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dr. George Pieczenik v. Abbott Laboratories

March 23, 2011

DR. GEORGE PIECZENIK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pisano, District Judge.

OPINION

Plaintiff George Pieczenik ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brings this action against a number of defendants*fn1 alleging patent infringement and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Presently before the Court is a joint motion by all defendants to dismiss the Amended Complaint (hereinafter, the "Complaint" or "Compl.") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). Plaintiff has opposed the motion. Also before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff seeking recusal of the undersigned. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties with respect to each motion and decides the matters without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons below, Plaintiff's motion for recusal is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The Patent*fn2

George Pieczenik is the named inventor and the owner of United States Patent No. 5,866,363 (the " '363 patent"), entitled "Method and Means for Sorting and Indentifying Biological Information." According to Plaintiff, the '363 patent "discloses and claims a method and means of identifying biological information. Compl. ¶ 107. The Complaint states that [t]he patent claims random nucleotide libraries that code for random peptide libraries separately and on display phage. It also claims random monoclonal and polyclonal libraries and the use of combinations of the two in a matrix to identify molecular surfaces, antibody specificity, lead compounds for drug discover[y], receptors and antigenic determinants.

Compl. ¶ 109. The '363 patent is licensed to, among others, New England Biolabs, Inc., ("NEB"), who has held the license since 2004.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Taiho Pharma U.S.A., Inc., The Dow Chemical Company, ZymoGenetics, Inc., ZymoGenetics LLC.

The Instant Action

On July 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging infringement of the '363 patent as well as RICO violations against approximately 100 defendants. With respect to infringement, the Complaint makes various allegations. Generally speaking, it alleges, among other things, that the defendants each hold various patents or patent applications which Plaintiff contends "are evidence for the use, manufacture and sale of products and methods described and claimed in the '363 patent." Compl. ¶ 133. The Complaint also alleges that certain defendants purchased "Phage Display Library Kit[s]" from NEB prior to NEB obtaining its license from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's RICO claims are asserted against most, but not all, of the defendants. These RICO claims frequently find their basis in allegations of World War II-era activities. For example, as to the Abbott defendants, Plaintiff's RICO count alleges:

Abbott's relationship with BASF, which was part of I.G. Farben,*fn3 which was never de-nazified by the McCloy commission[,] makes it part of that continuing criminal conspiracy. Germany never having signed a peace treaty with the Allies, in order to avoid reparation for its use of slave labor, on advice from the Allied Commissioner John McCloy. This has left the [G]erman industries and their collaborators exposed to this court[']s jurisdiction under the US RICO statutes.

Compl. ¶ 145. Similarly, Plaintiff's RICO claim against Astellas Pharma US, Inc. is based upon allegations that Astellas is connected to "Unit 731," which Plaintiff alleges was a biological warfare unit that "specializ[ed] in vivisection of Chinese and American prisoners of war" during World War II. Compl. ¶ 198.

As of the date of this Opinion, there remain 88 defendants ("Defendants") in this case who have jointly filed this motion to dismiss in response to the Complaint.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.