A Tech Superwoman Is Accused of Borrowing Her IP Powers
Surbhi Sarna started a company for detecting ovarian cancer and sold it for $150 million before turning 35. Now a long-ago former employer is claiming that Sarna actually developed the technology on its dime, with its trade secrets.
July 17, 2020 at 05:11 PM
5 minute read
For Surbhi Sarna, business is personal. At age 13 she developed an ovarian cyst, but at the time the only way to determine if was cancerous was by invasive surgery that risked spreading any cancer.
The cyst ultimately was benign, but it shaped Sarna's career. "Right away, after that experience," she told a UC alumni publication, "I knew that I wanted to be an entrepreneur and start a company dedicated to women's health to try to find an early detection mechanism for ovarian cancer."
As a product development engineer at San Carlos heart health company BioCardia Inc., she worked nights and weekends patenting innovative diagnostic tools for fallopian tubes. She left BioCardia after four years, in 2012, and started her own company, nVision Medical Corp.
The departure appears to have been amicable. "Hey Surbs," BioCardia Vice President for Regulatory Andrew Mackenzie emailed her after reconnecting at a 2013 medical conference. Mackenzie told her it made him "happy to see how successful you have been at pursuing the birth of your company."
Sarna and nVision have indeed grown successful. By 2015, Forbes named Sarna a Tech Superwoman. Then Boston Scientific Corp. paid $150 million plus milestone payments to acquire nVision in 2018. And now, the feelings at BioCardia, a publicly traded company with a market cap of $30 million, seem less warm.
BioCardia and Boston Scientific have been locked in litigation since last year. At a nearly two-hour Zoom hearing before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California on Thursday, BioCardia argued that Sarna quietly incorporated nVision and began applying for patents just a year into her tenure at BioCardia. "It is very, very common in the valley for people to start up companies while they're still leaving. It's not common that they start the company for two and a half years and never tell anyone," Ian Feinberg of Burlingame's Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli argued for BioCardia.
Feinberg accused Sarna of using BioCardia trade secrets to develop her technology for guiding catheters through fallopian tubes. He further sought to impose a constructive trust on the venture capitalists who he said should have seen red flags around nVision's intellectual property and were unjustly enriched by the Boston Scientific acquisition. "They've taken the risk that it will turn out that nVision has contaminated IP," Feinberg said.
That part of the case sounded like a long shot following Thursday's hearing. "At that point is there wrongdoing?" Chhabria asked Feinberg. "You're saying, 'We're going to invest in a company, and there's risk that there may be problems with its IP.' I mean, I assume that happens every day in Silicon Valley."
Sarna agreed by contract to assign all her inventions to BioCardia while in its employ. But the agreement had a carve-out for California Labor Code Section 2870, which specifies that an invention developed on an employee's own time, on subject matter outside the scope of employment, belongs to the employee.
Boston Scientific, nVision and Sarna argue that Sarna's technology has nothing to do with heart health, and that she was always upfront about her plans and ambitions. On the day she interviewed for her job, she told BioCardia she expected to be running a women's health company in five years, Sarna's attorney, Bob Freitas, told Chhabria on Thursday. "That she was doing something in secret" is not true, said Freitas, of Redwood City's Freitas & Weinberg.
Freitas said there are "a whole host of facts" that will show BioCardia knew about Sarna's patents for years and never complained until the Boston Scientific acquisition, long after the statutes of limitations ran. In court papers, nVision notes that BioCardia vice president Mackenzie was at the June 2013 conference where Sarna presented about her company and its technology. "Several patents pending on unique catheter characteristics and methods of use," states a slide deck that accompanied Sarna's presentation that day.
Feinberg acknowledged Thursday that "there is going to be a major fight in this case over statute of limitations, and when BioCardia knew or should have known" about the patents. "That is going to be a real fight."
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath partner Timothy Grimsrud appeared briefly for Boston Scientific. He noted that the company announced earlier this year that it's stopped investing in the nVision technology. "This is not a case where there's going to be a product coming out from nVision," he said.
Chhabria sounded open to the argument that Sarna misappropriated BioCardia trade secrets, though he emphasized he was only "thinking out loud" at an early stage of the litigation. On three different occasions he characterized Sarna as having "repurposed" BioCardia technology, even though Feinberg cautioned that he wouldn't put it quite that strongly.
The statute of limitations may be BioCardia's biggest problem, but it will have to wait until summary judgment motions. "If you made me bet," Chhabria said, "I would say it's a summary judgment fight that the defendants are going to have a very good chance of winning."
In the meantime he asked for letter briefs on the venture capital issue and whether nVision was properly added as a defendant. He scheduled another hearing for next week.
"This is a very interesting case. It's a very complicated problem," Chhabria said. "And I want to spend more time, probably a lot more time talking about it."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Big Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
6 minute readJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250