Florey Institute of Neuroscience & Mental Health v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

Good Law
31 F. Supp. 3d 1034·2014 WL 1248045·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41374
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 26, 2014Case No. CV 12-6504 SCCalifornia6,925 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is the above-captioned Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health’s (“Plaintiff’) first amended complaint. ECF No. 43 (“FAC”). All Defendants except Thomas G. Wiggans join in one motion to dismiss, ECF No. 53 (“KPCB MTD”), while Mr. Wiggans filed his own motion, ECF No. 77 (‘Wiggans MTD”). 1 The motions are fully *1038 briefed. 2 The Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-l(b). As discussed below, the motions are GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court summarized the facts of this case in its September 26, 2013 Order. ECF No. 41 (“Sept. 26 Order”). It repeats some of the germane facts below, followed by a procedural summary.

A. Factual Background

In 1982, Plaintiff entered a research collaboration and IP licensing agreement with Genentech. FAC ¶¶ 28-31. The agreement concerned Plaintiffs extensive work on the relaxin peptide, whose many uses include treating acute heart failure. Id. ¶¶ 1-11. In 1993, Genentech established a separate entity that became Con-nectics Corporation (“CNCT”). Id. ¶ 32. CNCT was tasked…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.