8/27/2007 - PR:'Mr. Novak will represent NanoLogix as our dedicated intellectual property counsel and manage the expansion and protection of our technologies through patents and other methods. NanoLogix's key asset value is its impressive intellectual property portfolio,' said Vice President of Strategic Partnering, Dana Allen. 'We are pleased to welcome Chris to the Company in this newly- created role.'
3/7/2011 - PR: NanoLogix is pleased to welcome four exceptionally talented individuals to its Science Advisory Board. New members include Dr. Megan Barnhizer, D.V.M.; Dr. Sebastian Faro, M.D., Ph.D.; and Dr. Allan Katz, M.D. and Dr. Gwen R. Acker Wood, Ph.D., J.D. .... Gwen R. Acker Wood is a U.S. and foreign patent attorney, who brings a wealth of medical, biotechnology and life sciences patent experience to NanoLogix. Dr. Wood handles patent filings for NanoLogix through her firm, Acker Wood IP Law.
The case is a breach of contract case according to the docket info. This appears to be over whether Mr. Novak's contract was terminated improperly. Strange that it has taken this long for him to file though. Maybe he is a little bitter at the company's current development.
I went over to iHub and read the posts from the last couple days. I have to admit it's no longer the circle-jerk for uber-bulls gushing over everything Barnhizer and the company does. Really, there's some good stuff I'm surprised Parents or one of the others who keep posting iHub material here didn't already share here.
There is an especially interesting discussion about the flat-pack technology being licensed by company. That's at least how it was described in the latest update. The issue is whether the company should own it outright instead of licensing it (meaning, perhaps, Barnhizer is getting additional and ongoing compensation for its use) since it was invented by a company employee and likely worked on on company property and with company resources. It's difficult to tell what is really happening with this matter but evidently one or two people are planning on looking into this further.
Really, it could be just another case of misinterpreting or sloppy terminology and Barnhizer meant the patent is assigned to the company, as typically happens when employees of an organization invent something related to work, and that the company has full rights to license it to others. Remember when the company kept referring to the TMC research as a clinical trial and then finally clarified it was only a study or when talk of FDA approvals meant exemptions?
I didn't, however, see anything on iHub about this breach-of-contract case filed in California against the company. There were some mentions of secret telephone recordings but I couldn't find anything posted in the past few days that explained what that chatter was about.