Penn Lawsuit

.....
"
... ~
Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 46
FILED
lO
..
j'.
~~'
MAY 11 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLV AN14..i
MICHAELE. KUNZ, Clerk

By
Dep. Clerk
PAUL RATNARAJ,
CIVIL ACTION NO. _ _ __
Plaintiff,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

PENNSYLVANIA
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441, 1446, and 1454, Defendant the Trustees of the University
of Pennsylvania (the "University"), hereby removes this action from the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In
support of its Notice of Removal, the University states as follows:
BACKGROUND
I.
Plaintiff Paul Ratnaraj commenced this action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on April 17, 2015 by filing a Complaint against the
University.
2.
True and correct copies of the Notice, Summons, and Complaint, which constitute
"all process, pleadings and orders served upon the University," are attached hereto as Exhibit l.
3.
On April 22, 2015, counsel for the University accepted service of the Complaint.
Thus, this Notice of Removal is timely filed within 30 days of acceptance of service of the
Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(l); see also id. 1446(b)(2)(B) and 1454(b).
4.
A copy of this Notice of Removal is being filed with the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and is being served on all counsel
of record in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1446(d) and 1454(b).
5.
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts six state law claims arising out of the University's
purported actions with respect to a software program known as the Wharton Research Data
Services program ("WRDS"), which was allegedly created during the course of Plaintiff's
employment at the University. See Ex. 1, iril 4-9, 14. Plaintiff alleges that he and his colleagues
"applied for a patent for WRDS," and that the patent ultimately issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6, 185,567
(the '" 567 Patent"). Ex. 1, ii 9.
BASIS FOR REMOVAL
6.
The University removes this case to federal court on three separate and
independent grounds. First, federal jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff's claims arise out of and
necessarily depend upon resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law.
Second,
federal jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff's claims arise out of and necessarily depend upon
resolution of a substantial question of federal copyright law. Third, federal jurisdiction exists
because one or more of Plaintiff's claims are completely preempted by federal copyright law.
7.
28 U.S.C. 144l(a) provides that "any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant ... to the district court .... " Any party may remove "[a] civil action in which any
party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents . . . or
copyrights ... to the district court .... " 28 U.S.C. 1454(a) & (b)(l). Plaintiff's Complaint is a
civil action within this Court's original jurisdiction because Plaintiff's "right to relief necessarily
depends on resolution of substantial question[s] of federal law." See Christianson v. Colt Indus.
Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988); see also Gunn v. Minton,---- U.S. ----, 133 S. Ct.
1059, 1065 (2013 ). Plaintiffs Complaint asserts claims for relief arising under both federal
patent law and federal copyright law.
8.
First, Plaintiffs claims may be removed because they arise out of and necessarily
involve resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law: whether WRDS practices the
'567 Patent. Plaintiff alleges that WRDS is a patented invention and requests that the Court
determine his rights under the University's Patent and Tangible Research Property Policies and
Procedures ("Patent Policy"). See Ex. 1,
irir 9, 17-19; id., Ex.
A. Indeed, although framed as
state law causes of action, in order to determine whether Plaintiff has any rights flowing from the
Patent Policy - a prerequisite allegation Plaintiff has pled in connection with five of the six
claims that he asserts (see Ex. 1,
iril 42, 48, 58, 61-63, 66, 76, 79, 93-96), the Court would
necessarily need to rely on federal law to construe and apply the claims of the '567 Patent.
Therefore, Plaintiffs claims arise under federal patent law and should be adjudicated in this
Court. See generally U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray, 212 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding
that where state law claim requires court to "interpret the patents and then determine whether the
[accused product] infringes these patents" federal court has jurisdiction); cf 28 U.S.C. 1454(a)
("A civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress
relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights may be removed to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action is pending.").
9.
Second, Plaintiffs claims may be removed because they arise out of and
implicate resolution of a substantial question of federal copyright law: whether Plaintiff or the
University is the original author of WRDS. Although Plaintiff alleges that he is an inventor and
creator ofWRDS, see Ex. 1, iii! 6-8, 13, he concedes that WRDS was created while he was
employed at the University, see id.
ifi! 5-8, raising the substantial issue of whether WRDS was
created as a work made for hire under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. l 01. Under the workfor-hire doctrine, the employer, rather than the employee, is the original author of a copyrighted
work. See 17 U.S.C. 20l(b). Where, as here, there is an authorship dispute dependent on the
application of the Copyright Act, a federal court appropriately exercises jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Merchant v. levy, 92 F.3d 51, 55 (2d Cir. 1996); id. at 56 (stating that resolution of arguments
such as the applicability of the work-for-hire doctrine "involve[d] construing the [Copyright]
Act"); cf 28 U.S.C. 1454(a).
10.
Third, removal is appropriate because Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim, at a
minimum, is completely preempted by the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. 301 (a); Tech. Based
Solutions, Inc. v. Elecs. Coll. Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 375, 379 (E.D. Pa. 2001) ("Under the
Copyright Act, state law claims which fall within the subject matter of copyrights are
preempted."). Plaintiff contends that "[b]y creating and patenting WRDS, and by allowing the
University to license WRDS to academic, governmental, and commercial subscribers, Plaintiff
conferred a benefit on the University," and that the University was unjustly enriched when it
allegedly licensed WRDS to third parties without paying Plaintiff fair value. See Ex. 1, iii! 5153. A computer program is protected by the Copyright Act as a literary work. See Apple
Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F. 2d 1240, 1249 (3d Cir. 1983). "A state Jaw
claim is preempted by the Copyright Act if ( 1) the subject matter of the state law claim falls
within the subject matter of the copyright laws and (2) the asserted state law right is equivalent to
the exclusive right that federal law protects." Curtin v. Star Editorial, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 670,
674-75 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim is
equivalent to a claim that the University distributed and otherwise copied a copyrighted work
without authorization. See Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs., Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc.,
307 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim is preempted
by the Copyright Act. See Curtin, 2 F. Supp. 2d at 674 ("Regardless of the exact contours of
such a cause of action, a claim for copyright infringement preempts a common law claim of
unjust enrichment."). 1 Plaintiffs remaining claims, to the extent not predicated on a substantial
question of patent law, may likewise be preempted.
11.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 l(a) and 1454(a), this case is properly removed to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because this is the
District embracing the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania where
Plaintiffs action was pending at the time of removal.
12.
The University is the sole Defendant in this action and, thus, all defendants have
consented to removal.
13.
Accordingly, the University has complied with all of the procedural prerequisites
for removal, and this action - which arises under federal patent and copyright law and which
asserts an unjust enrichment claim wholly preempted by the Copyright Act - is properly
removed to federal court.
To the extent the Court determines that it has original jurisdiction only over certain claim(s), the Court
may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims because all the claims in the instant
action form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
Respectfully submit~ed,
Jj
~ ~tLlijC!of-1 ,.I_/
Isl Eric Kraeutler

Eric K.raeutler (PA Bar I.D. No. 32189)
Deborah W. Frey (PA Bar I.D. No. 310717)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCK.IVS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
215.963.5000 (telephone)
215.963.5001 (facsimile)
ekraeutler@morganlewis.com
dfrey@morganlewis.com
Dated: May 11, 2015
Attorneys for Defendant Trustees of the

University of Pennsylvania
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Deborah W. Frey, do hereby certify that on this 11th day of May, 2015, the foregoing
was served on the following counsel as set forth below:
via Hand Delivery and Electronic Mail
Gavin P. Lentz, Esq.

Bryan R. Lentz, Esq.
Peter R. Bryant, Esq.
Bochetto & Lentz, P.C.
1524 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Plaintif.!Paul Ratnaraj
Isl Deborah W. Frev

Deborah W. Frey
Exhibit 1
BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.

By:
Gavin P. Lentz, Esquire
B1yan R. Lentz, Esquire
Peter R. Bryant, Esquire
Identification Nos.: 53609, 71383, 312328
1524 Locust Street
(215)735-3900
(215) 735-2455 fax
glentz@bochettoandle11tz.gom
blentz@bochettoancllentz.com
pbryant(Ci{bochettoandlentz.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,
PENNSYVANIA
PAULRATNARAJ
100 Quail Hollow Drive
Sewell, NJ 08080
TERM
NO.:
Plaintiff
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THE TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Center for Technology Transfer
3160 Chestnut Street
Suite 200
Defendant
NOTICE
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and
notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing
in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any
money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the
plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HA VE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET
LEGAL HELP.
Philadelphia Bar Association
Lawyer Refe1rnl and Information Service
One Reading Center
Telephone: (215) 238 -170 I
Case ID: 150401651
AVISO
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas
expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la
fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparesencia escrita o
en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la c011e en forma cscrita sus dcfcnsas o sus
objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se
dcfiende, la co11e tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin
previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor de! demandante y
requier que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede
perder dint:ro o sus propiedades u otros derechos impmtantcs para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO

TIENE ABOGADO 0 SJ NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA
CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERJGUAR
DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUJR AS I STEN CIA LEGAL.
Asociacion De Licenciados De Filadelfia
SERVJCIO De Referencia E lnformacion Legal
One Reading Center
Filadelfia, Pennsylvania 19107
Tclefono: (215) 238-1701
Case ID: 150401651

Comt of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Trial Division
For Prothonotarv Use Onlv <Docket Number\
APRIL 201s
Civil Cover Sheet
001651
1504035448
E-FilingNumbe'r:
- ------
PLAINTIFF'S NAME
PAUL RATNARAJ
DEFENDANT'S NAME
THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS
100 QUAIL HOLLOW DRIVE
SEWELL NJ 08080
DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS
CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
STREET SUITE 200
PHILADELPHIA PA 19104
------
3160
CHESTNUT
---- -
PLAINTIFF'S NAME
DEFENDANT'S NAME
PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS
DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS
PLAINTIFF'S NAME
DEFENDANT'S NAME
PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS
DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS
--
---
TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS
[ii
Complaint
Petition Action
Writ of Swrunons
Transfer From Other Jurisdictions
D
D
Minor Courl Appeal
Notice of Appeal
1----
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
COURT PROGRAMS
D
D
D
Arbitration
$50,000.00 or less
[ii Jury
[ii
More than $50,000.00
D
D
Non-Jury
Mass To1t.
Savings Action
Cmmnerce
Petition
Statutory Appeals
CONTRACTS
Settlement
Minors
W/D/Survival
Other:
---
CASE TYPE AND CODE
10
D
D
D
OTHER
---
STATUTORY BASIS FOR CAUSE OF ACTION
RELATED PENDING CASES (UST BY CASE CAPTION AND DOCKET NUMBER)
--
RLED
IS CASE SUBJECT TO
COORDINATION ORDER?
YES
PROPROlHY
APR
17 2015
D.SAVAGE
---
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant:
PAUL RATNARAJ
Papers may be served at the address set forth below.

--
- - - -...
NAME OF PLAINTIFPS/PETITIONER'S/APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY

BRYAN R.
ADDRESS
BOCHETTO
LENTZ
1524
PHONE NUMBER
(215)735-3900
FAX NUMBER
&
LOCUST
LENTZ,
P.C.
STREET
PHILADELPHIA PA
19102
(215)735-2455
SUPREME COURT IDENTIRCATION NO.
E-MAIL ADDRESS
71383
blentz@bochettoandlentz.com
-----.
SIGNATURE OF FILING ATTORNEY OR PARTY
DATE SUBMITTED
BRYAN LENTZ
Friday,
--------
April
FINAL COPY (Approved by the Prothonotary Clerk)
17, 2015, 12:42 pm
NO
BOCHETIO & LENTZ, P.C.

By:
Bryan R. Lentz, Esquire

Identification Nos.: 53609, 71383, 312328
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1524 Locust Street
(215)735-3900
(215) 735-2455 fax
glentz@bochettoandlentz.com
blentz@bochettoandlentz.com
pbryant@bochettoandlentz.com
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.
PENNSYVANIA
PAUL RATNARAJ
100 Quail Hollow Drive

Sewell, NJ 08080
TERM
NO.:
Plaintiff
v.
JVRY TRIAL DEMANDED

THETRUSTEESOFTHE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Center for Technology Transfer

3160 Chestnut Street
Suite200
DefemJant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, COMES, Plaintiff Paul R.atnaraj ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Ratnaraj") by and through
his undersigned cowisel, Bochetto and Lentz, P.C., ("B&L") and hereby submits the following
Case ID: 150401651
Complaint against Defendant The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and in support thereof
avers as follows:
I. THE PARTIES
Plainti~
1.
Paul Ratnaraj is an adult individual who resides at 100 Quail Hollow Drive,
Sewell, NJ 08080. As set forth more fully below, Mr. Ratnaraj is the lead inventor of the Wharton
Research Data Service software. Mr. Ratnaraj is the assignee of the claims of the following other
inventors ofWRDS: Gerry McCartney, Steve Crispi and Jalal Akhavein. Each of the assigning
inventors has empowered Mr. Ratnaraj to act on their behalf to recover the losses at issue in this
litigation.
Defendant, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("Defendant" and/or
2.
"University") are the duly appointed trustees of University of Pennsylvania with a principal place of
business located at the Center for Technology Transfer, 3160 Chestnut Street, Suite 200,
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6283.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
Mr. R.atnaraj is an accomplished professional in the area of database management
systems, an inventor and the current Director of Sales, Marketing & Business Development for the
Wharton Research Data Services program at the University of Pennsylvania.
4.
Mr. Ratnaraj was first employed by the University of Pennsylvania in 1992.
5.
In 1993 as Infonnation Systems Specialist with Wharton Computing and Infonnation
Technology (WCIT), Mr. Ratnaraj observed that faculty and doctoral students were spending up to
40 percent of their time programming, writing database queries and refonnatting data so that they
could use it for analysis, and then asking Wharton's in-house database experts for help.
6.
In response to this problem, Mr. Ratnaraj developed a system that allowed professors
Case ID: 150401651
and their students direct access to the database infonnation they sought, thus reducing the need for
database analysis and outside help when researching. Mr. Ratnaraj developed this system on his
own initiative and not at the request or prompting of the University.
7.
. In 1993, based on his early success streamlining access to data for students and
faculty Mr. Ratnaraj began leading a team of University employees and students to further develop
and implement his innovative system.
8.
Under the direction ofMr. Ratnaraj, Gerry McCartney, Son To, Steve Crispi and Jalal
Akhavein all worked together to create what became known as the Wharton Research Data Services
program ("WRDS").
9.
In May of 1998 after the system had been in use for almost 5 years, Mr. Ratanaraj and
his colleagues applied for a patent for WRDS. The patent, No. US 6,185,567, was issued in February
2001.
10.
The University, like many other Ivy League schools, has an active program to license
its academic research, including technologies, for commercial purposes to various third party
entities, in an effort to increase revenue, as well as the University's stature as a world-class research
facility.
11.
This policy is outlined in the ''Patent and Tangible Research Property Policies and
Procedures of the University of Pennsylvania" ("The Policy"). (See a true and correct copy of the
Policy attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")
12.
In the "Preamble to the Policies and Procedures" the Policy states in part;
The University wishes to share the economic benefits of invention or other
intellectual property with the creators of such works in a way that is
consistent with the research and educational mission of the University, and
conforms to the University's obligations to regulatory authorities, research
sponsors and licensees.
Case ID: 150401651
13.
Mr. Ratnaraj and his colleagues are the "creators" ofWRDS.
14.
The University acknowledged Mr. Ratnaraj's as the creator ofWRDS ina January
22, 1999 letter when it requested that he enter into a Five Year Exclusive license ''regarding the
software product referred to as "WRDS" wWch you created under the general direction of Gerry
McCartney .... " (See a true and correct copy of the January 22, 1999 Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit "B.")
1S.
The University's marketing materials likewise describe Mr. Ratnarj as "the creator of
WRDS." (See a true and correct copy of"A Way with WRDS" attached hereto as Exhibit "C.")
16.
Article 4 of the Policy; "Definitions" defines "INVENTION" and "INVENTORS" as
follows;
4.0.11 INVENTION means and includes technical information, trade secrets,
developments, discoveries, know how, methods, techniques, fonnulae, dab4
processes and other proprietary ideas or matter.
4.0.12 INVENTORS means University faculty, emeritus faculty, visiting faculty,
post-doctoral employees, or other employees, or students, or others who individually
or jointly make an INVENTION subject to the PATENT POLICY and who meet
criteria for inventorsbip under United States patent laws and regulations.
17.
WRDS is an invention and Mr. Ratnaraj and his colleagues are the inventors, as set
forth on the U.S. Patent and as acknowledged by the University through its staff.
18.
Pursuant to the Article 2.3 .1 of the Policy the University was entitled to license any
invention created by Plaintiff on the condition that the University paid Plaintiff 30% of the Net
Royalty Income received from the license. Ex. A at 2.3.1.
19.
Thus, at all times material, the University and Plaintiff shared the rights to royalties
from any licensing of the WRDS and the University was obligated to pay Plaintiff 30% of all Net
Royalty Income generated by WRDS.
Case ID: 150401651
20.
Moreover, pursuant to the 1993 Policy, "[r]oyalty distributions, with a report
accounting for costs charged against the royalties, shall be made to each royalty recipient within 45
days of the end of the quarter during which royalties are received." Ex. A at 2.5.
21.
Since its creation, WRDS has become the standard financial data research platfonn
for academia.
22.
In short, WRDS has simplified the collection, searchability and research of financial
data that would otherwise cost an enonnous amount of time and energy to assemble for practical
usage.
23.
In fact, WRDS has been "revolutionizing the way data was analyzed, accessed and
distributed" since the mid-1990s. Ex. C.

24.
WRDS was first marketed and sold to Stanford University in 1997 and has since
become "an essential tool for any research institution working in finance, business or management,
as well as a way for research institutions to recruit the brightest minds in the field." Ex. C.
25.
As of July 31, 2014, WRDS has 374 academic, government, and commercial
subscribers in over 33 countries.

26.
WRDS's subscribers .include top academic institutions like Stanford University, as
well as commercial clients such as Goldman Sachs, and governmental and regulatory entities like the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve Banks.
27.
The average annual subscription fee for WRDS for each of the 374 subscribers is
approximately $40,000.00 and the sales are expected to exceed $160 Million.
28.
Accordingly, at all times material, the University was required to provide Plaintiff
with an accounting of all royalty distributions and costs each quarter that royalties were generated by
WRDS.
Case ID: 150401651
29.
After September 1, 2002, the Five Year Exclusive License that Mr. Ratnaraj signed in
1999, ceased and Mr. Ratnaraj's rights to receive 30% of the Net Royalty Income generated by
WRDS commenced.
However, the University breached the 1993 Policy by failing to pay Mr. Ratnaraj
30.
30% of royalties generated by WRDS after the expiration of the Five Year Exclusive License.
31.
The University further breached the 1993 Policy by failing to provide Mr. Ratnaraj
with quarterly reports detailing distribution ofroyalties from WRDS.

In or about 2014, Mr. Ratnaraj spoke to Robert Zarazowski, the Senior Director of the
32.
WRDS department and informed Mr. Zarazowski that he had not received any proceeds from the
University for its licensing of WRDS since the expiration of the Five Year Exclusive License in
2002.
Mr. Ratnaraj placed the University on notice that he intended to seek remuneration
33.
for the 30% Net Royalty Income he was owed for his creation ofWRDS.
34.
The revenue generated by the subscribers in 2013-2014 alone was approximately $16
million dollars.
35.
Thus, fortb.e 2013-2014 year, those royalties would be in excess ofS4.8 Million.
36.
To date, the University has failed to make any payment to Mr. Ratnaraj for the use of
the WRDS system that he invented and patented, and for which he is entitled to 30% Net Royalty
Income on the basis of the University's own Patent Policy.
37.
As a result of this failure, the University has breached the 1993 Policy, and Mr.
Ratnaraj has incurred significant financial harm.
Case ID: 150401651
COUNT I
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
Plaintiffv. Defendant
38.
Plaintiff hereby repeats and incorporates all other allegations contained herein though
as set forth at length.

39.
By engaging in the aforementioned above-said conduct, the University has materially
breached the 1993 Policy. (See Exhibit "A" hereto.)

40.
The University has licensed the use of WRDS to over 374 academic, governmental
and commercial subscribers in over 33 countries.

41.
Indeed, in 2013-2014 alone, the University's royalty revenue from the use ofWRDS
were approximately $16 Million.

42.
Accordingly, under the 1993 Policy, Plaintiff was entitled to 30% of $16 Million, or
approximately $4.8 Million.

43.
To date, the University has faUed to make any royalty payments to Plaintiff.
44.
Such a failure is a material breach of the 1993 Policy.
45.
The University has further breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by
identifying the license fees as subscription fees.

46.
There is no difference between fees for the license ofWRDS and fees for a
subscription to it.
47.
However, the University has identified such royalties as "subscription fees" in an
attempt to evade the spirit of the agreement.

48.
As a direct result of the University's breach of the 1993 Policy, Plaintiff herein have
suffered substantial damages and damages for the unauthorized use of its license.
Case ID: 150401651
49.
In the alternative, if the University avers that the 2010 Patent Policy applies, which
Plaintiff dispute, the University has failed to pay Plaintiff 30% of all royalties under the 1993 Policy
from September 1, 2002 to July 1, 2010, and further failed to pay Plaintiff pursuant to the 2010
Patent Policy from July l, 2010 to present.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant in excess
of $4.8 Million together with attorney's fees, costs and any further relief the Court deems just.
COUNT II
(UNJUST ENRICHMENT)
Plaintiffv. Defendant
50.
Plaintiff hereby repeats and incorporates all other a.llegations contained herein as if
fully set forth at length.

51.
By creating and patenting WRDS, and by allowing the University to license WRDS
to academic, governmental, and commercial subscribers, Plaintiff conferred a benefit on the

University.
52.
The University bas appreciated th.at benefit by receiving substantial revenues for the
subscription use ofWRDS by such academic, governmental and commercial subscribers.

53.
It is inequitable to pcnnit the University to retain the benefits of commercially
exploiting WRDS without paying Plaintiff fair value for the unauthorized use of WRDS for profit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant in
excess of$4.8 Million together with attorney's fees, costs and any further relief the Court deems
just.
Case ID: 15040165i
COUNT III
(Request for Declaratory Reliet)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
54.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if set forth fully at
length herein.
55.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Law, this Court is empowered to declare the status and
other legal relations of parties whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. 42 Pa.C.S. 7532
(2012).
56.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Law, any person with an interest under a written contract or
other writing constituting a contract, may have determined any question of construction or validity
arising under the contract and obtain a declaration of rights, status or legal relations thereunder. 42
Pa.C.S. 7533 (2012).
57.
As set forth more fully herein, Plaintiff entered into a binding agreement under the
1993 Policy.
58.
The terms of the 1993 Policy control the University's financial responsibilities to
Plaintiff related to the licensure of the WRDS.

59.
However, despite the clear terms of the 1993 Policy, the University has failed to pay
Plaintiff the 30% Net Royalty Income they are owed under the 1993 Policy.
60.
Instead, upon information and belief, the University is attempting to disclaim any
responsibility to pay Plaintiff's 30% Net Royalty Income for WRDS.

61.
Accordingly, there is an imminent, actual and bona fide controversy regarding the
Service Letter Agreement between Plaintiff's and the University's legal rights granted by the 1993
Policy.
Case ID: 150401651
62.
Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that the 1993 Policy is enforceable, and
that the University is bound to pay Plaintiff 30% of the Net Royalty Income received since 2002 and
going forward.
63.
Plaintiff further seeks an order declaring that Article 2.5 of the 1993 Policy is
enforceable and that the University is obligated to produce an accounting for all costs and
distributions made for any royalties received for the WRDS.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests declaratory judgment in their favor and against the
University enforcing the terms of the 1993 Policy, along with such other relief as the Court deems
equitable and just.
COUNT IV
(Request for Accounting)
64.
length herein.
65.
Plaintiff and the University entered into the 1993 Policy regarding patents and
inventions, including WRDS.

66.
By the terms of that 1993 Policy, the University agreed to pay Plaintiff 30% of the
Net Royalty Income generated by the licensing of WRDS.

67.
As Plaintiff's compensation was based on a percentage of sales generated by WRDS,
Plaintiff trusted and relied on the University to accurately and truthfully detennine the amount of
subscription sales generated from WRDS.
68.
Plaintiff was dependent on the University for a truthful and accurate accounting of its
revenue from WRDS.

69.
Therefore, Plaintiff was placed in a position of trust and reliance on the University to
10
Case ID: 150401651
be truthful and accurate as to the reporting of the sales generated WRDS.

70.
As such, Plaintiff and the university were engaged in a fiduciary relationship,
whereby the University's markedly superior position in determining and distributing information
related to sales generated WRDS, as well as Plaintiff' compensation, required that the University act
with the utmost good faith and loyalty.
71.
Moreover, the University is contractually obligated to provide Plaintiff with a report
accounting for all costs and distributions made every quarter for the sales generated by WRDS. Ex.
Cat 2.5.
72.
Despite this duty, the University has failed to report the extent of its sales generated
byWRDS.
73.
As such, the University has engaged in misrepresentations as to the sales generated by
WRDS.
74.
Additionally, as Plaintiff is entitled to 30% of all sales generated by WRDS, such an
accounting is complicated and involves thorough analysis of the genesis of each sale that the
University has made since 2002.
75.
Because a fiduciary relationship exists as to mutual and complicated accounts that
have been the subject of misrepresentation, Plaintiff is entitled to an equitable accounting.

76.
Moreover, as the 1993 Policy specifically states that the University was required to
provide Plaintiff with a report every quarter detailing the royalties obtained and distributed by the
University that were generated by WRDS, Plaintiff are entitled to a legal accounting.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands an accounting of Defendant's Revenue generated by
WRDS, as well as the imposition of a constructive trust on all fees owed to Plaintiff and all other
relief as the Court deems just.
11
Case ID: 150401651
COUNTV
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

Plaintiff v. Defend.ant
77.
length herein.
78.
Plaintiff and the University entered into the 1993 Policy regarding patents and
inventions, including WRDS.

79.
By the terms of that 1993 Policy, the University agreed to pay Plaintiff30% ofthc
Net Royalty Income generated by the licensing of WRDS.

80.
As Plaintiff's compensation was based on a percentage of sales generated by WRDS,
Plaintiff trusted and relied on the University to accurately and truthfully determine the amount of
subscription sales generated from WRDS.

81.
Plaintiff was dependent on the University for a truthful and accurate accounting of its
revenue from WRDS.

82.
Therefore, Plaintiff was placed in a position of trust and reliance on the University to
be truthful and accurate as to the reporting of the sales generated WRDS.

83.
As such, Plaintiff and the University were engaged in a fiduciary relationship,
whereby the University's markedly superior position in determining and distributing information
related to sates generated WRDS, as well as Plaintiff compensation, required that the University act
with the utmost good faith and loyalty.
84.
The University breached that fiduciary duty by concealing the immense WRDS
royalties from Plaintiff.

85.
To date, the University has not made any payments to Plaintiff for the WRDS
royalties it has received.
12
Case ID: 150401651
86.
As set forth more fully herein, in 2013-2014, those royalties were approximately $16
Million.
87.
As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of$4.8 Million.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant in excess
of$4.8 Million together with attorney's fees, costs and any further relief the Court deems just.
COUNT VI
(Violation of Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law)
88.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if set forth fu1ly at
length herein.
89.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), every
employer is obligated to pay all wages due to its employees. 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 260.3(a).
90.
Pursuant to the WPCL, an employer includes but is not limited to "every person, finn
or partnership, association, corporation receiver ... or any of the above mentioned classes
employing any person in this Commonwealth." Id. at 260.2(a).
91.
Pursuant to the WPCL, wages include "al] earnings of an employe, regardless of
whether detennined on time, task, piece, commission, or other method of calculation."

92.
Moreover, "wage supplements," include "any other amount to be paid pursuant to an
agreement to the cmploye." 43 P.S. 260.2a; See also Hartman v. .Baker, 766 A.2d 347, 353
(Pa.Super.2000).
93.
The University is obligated to pay Plaintiff 30% of the Net Royalty Income generated
by WRDS pursuant to the 1993 Policy.
94.
Moreover, Plaintiff's participation in the 1993 Policy was a condition of Plaintiff
employment. Ex. A 2.1.1.
13
Case ID: 150401651
95.
Thus, the 30% of Net Royalty Income generated by WRDS that is owed to Plaintiff
under the 1993 Policy is an "amount to be paid pursuant to an agreement to the employe" and
therefore constitutes wages under the WPCL.
96.
Moreover, due to the requirement that Plaintiff be bound to the 1993 Policy as a
condition of their employment, Plaintiff entitlement to 30% of the Net Royalty Income generated by
WRDS is an earning by Plaintiff that occurred in the context of their employment.
97.
As a result, the University's withholding of those monies is a violation of the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
98.
Pursuant to the WPCL, Plaintiff are also entitled to attorneys fees and liquidated
damages of 25%.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant for an
amount in excess of $4.8 MiJlion, plus liquidated damages of 25% (equaling $1.2 Million), along
with attorneys' fees, costs, and any such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
Respectfully Submitted,
BOCBETTO & LENTZ, P.C.
Dated: April 17,2015

BY:~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan R. Lentz, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
14
Case ID: 150401651
EXHIBIT A
Case ID: 150401651
------------------OFRECORD~.---------------..--
. P~~t arid Ta.ngible Fleseanm Property .

P(>lideS
arid Procedure&
of the UnJversity
of Pennsylvania:
: .
.
.
.
..
. ' . .
.
ALMANAC SUPPUMENT Mmcll 15, 1994
S-I
'
'
Case ID: 150401651
------------OF.RECORD......,<----------
"~toeif.9>
(~~)A)::
f7.6%
27.K
a&.!>%
17.5%
23.0%
29.9'.'A.
S-11
(afl*C~'A &
di
~mA). ...:;_
':(after CAP A)., ..

.(afler CAP$1A.fl,.B)
ALMANAC SUPP~ffft
J !ffl4401651
15
------------------OF RECORD-----------------
s-m
Case ID: 150401651
---------'/OF.RECORD------------
-----------.OFRECORD
1
- - - - - - - - -
N~:A~b,gfn~Mxt.,.
"
ALMANAC
SUPPLBltlEN'l'
MJJ1ri 15; 1994
..
.
s..v
Case ID: 150401651
----------------.OFRECORD~.------~-------
S-Vl
M.AiANA.C Sl/PPLFJIENT fll(ch f.5 ~
Lase IV: 5u401651
-------------------OF RECORD-.--------~!------AppencjlX D.. 198~

~tor RoyaitV DIWtbutlon
" ..
S~
Case ID: 150401651
111nnuc
ih
Slt
U!Pi.f
i!fEf.ilifUUUHff
.
i
1
1.!i1u:nl lir. :1 . :. ~-ttlli'l:'r ~.ir1-':11~iij1111l ~.
a!l'< .s
lt -s..i.
1
- 1 lf .i<1. ~-J:. i1-il fr.ui;. t!'lr~iir~i:i
l1:i.J>~J.c"r .~ 11
lr(l. i:.iJ
-1
. .
-t . .liiJ .. ~:t.J.:-~.:at. -.: ~.3. 1.--:e:lstas:: . rr1t.

. ' .- a; Ji-I, ". i.[J-~ ~tf . I ~lf.~l]'~lff s:i
.J~. a. f ~: 11~ J~: i~a;lsl ~-:.i 1-~-l ~:i i~
t:;t_i;;:
8
nf.t;
i1!1fto.ai ....H- ~l
1.~ifshil j.J
.1
(")
:u
._Xi
~
.......
0\
Ul
.......
fl
s .:
f .
i1
if'J.~-~. _1 ~11~ J
fSl f[r.. .
1
wl .
If lifit."' . if.11-"s'r.-cu.i.isll' .,
~ &il~lil8'J a ~I I ai !t~-f~:if.1 9 i'"'S1ftt
g:1ia1.: i
l:iiii.l~If'f ::"' . ~~ ltf.:ls.i_~~-1J. . ~ 1l11 ~f lt~t .~;-ft;r..
irltr2.~R... ii s
I~- ..g-... ~J.ttiaJ
f. t!J'd\! 'it. 8'.i af ~t.t
..
.
2,
.,,
.
..
iB
1.hlf1ltJr.1i~.fl.ilf!tJfl'1t1prtn.~-a.rf ~~~
1ql!s1 itttt
ni . 11r11I1i~b1~11ar1ti~
\1
1:1 1!_dh1i~J,,~ .1-1'u'I'cr.-Jilb~, ~h~1n
n~
~:
i~.
.-f''1 .1-t 1 . . ,.g. , iR;-f: . 1 . 1f' f
1
1
1
tn~. 1J.kl~~.fnu1l11~
1
~,~~i~~
.ir11th:tU1;1
u ~n i'~ r~ ... at .., ..3!t ~i
u,. ~1b1. 1d"1!1:1ftt,.0.i1it~ij nf!11: 1Jh!i
,'
1t
1u~tt~Bi.
Mf
H~J~._fllJ!Uif
if
!fill!.~-.i;~.
11
I
1-.... .
1
.s.f
...
i!~ f ~1.
jl l!I
~a-q f ..if . -.
:I;
"a f 11:.
13 ~~
J-. _;~(.fl~:{
I 84 : :.B_ s
fQ :.
It
l!tr _ r ~ tia.r~r a.fl~~~'<
It ..
irr~t-re-t ~- t2--I!
g~
,,
0
t1
EXHIBITB
Case ID: 150401651
Wharton
......
"'
22rld Jaiiliary, 1999
.I agree to the tenns ofthe above letter_
The Wharton Schou\

Unhrenltv of pltflMYl#lll
Case ID: 150401651
EXHIBIT C
Case ID: 150401651

A WAV'JWITH WRDS I WRDS
http://WWW.whartonwrds.com/2013/02106/wharton-research-data-serv.
A WAY WITH WRDS

POSTED BYROllERT COlll.E, fE8 t, 213 ~ lWB NO Cow.El(!$
Atllde tsoun:e: Wharton Magame
TWo )'88111 before Google foUndn I.any Page and StKVey Brin met, and rour y111W bdft Lexis Nexis made Ila
onllne dll:lut. the Wharton School ..11nched ill own WelMlald mean::h and data eppllcatloo.
N. a tme when AOL wa melU!1'1 ill toftwal9 to uaera onCDI. Wiman ReMal'Ch Dala SeMcel, or VVRDS,-.
111volullonlzlng 1he Mf'I data -
analynd, a~ and detrtbutlld.
Demand for V\RDS IP'IW beyond 'Mlanon-bagln'*1Q with Slmtmt UnlV&r1rty In 1997. WRDS beclme an
eaentlll tool for any AIMlrch tnatltutlon working In flnanoe. bullneu or mwwaemtn1. a well a 1 wsY for
rellllrch lnllltutlon1 to 19Crult the brigh1elt mlndl In the tleld, llCCCll'dlng to Paul Rltnll'IJ, the C1'811or of \\RDS
and c:urnllll dlnlclor ot aalea end malktting. lt-blea ~ to model end anllyze data more ...lly and In
Y8Slly falSef time.
VllRDS conlinuu to bUlld Ila ntpertolr9 of pmgrsma end Mtvicel to aupport aeadamla and, lnaMU!glr, the
pri\18111 MCtor. The organlalon playa a critlcal role In the Sdlool'a dorll to bridge tht GIP belweln llC&demla and
Industry and ID dluamlnate knowledge ID the globe! bulln111 community.
"Now, .. linanc:i.I reaeerch and analyalt geta more cornpliQl!ed, \\RDS mu.t continually lmprova Ill fu!t<;llonaity
ID antlclpllHnd -'the need offinendal reaearchert," ..,. RobertZ...-ld, MlliordirectcrofWRDS.
"Our cllente are IOlnlt of the most prelllglo1a lnalitutlons In global finance, and they demencl both IPMcf and
llCCl.ftte. relable c1ata. he explains.
More Than a Data Platform
-- -=-....
i:
........
=
=
-a:=== -: : .Countries
...-.
lnfographlc cnidll: Robert Col>le

WlarU>n Ruaarch Data SeMoee olfe11 20019!11bytes of data to 30,00D use11 In 30 counlltee-hlludlng
ecademlc, gowmrnent mid corpome dierQ. H11 one of the W011d'1 ludlng lnllmalbllad <111111 reMln:h aecvloe,
Case ID: 150401651

I of3
A W~Y Winl WRDS I WRDS

.......
http://www.whartonwrds.com/2013/02106/whartonrcsearoh-dataserv..
providing uterw with .ccau to data from lnd9PC111dent soun;ea, 1t11ch H Capital IQ, NYSE EU'Olltld, Center for
Rneen:h In Secutlly PrlcM (CRSP) and ThorMOn Reulerl.Marlt Kelntz, G'77, a aenlor data nyst et 'ARDS,
provlda one example of the lnfonnation WRDS ctr.rs: every trade and BvtfY quote fn:m the New York Stock
Exchange ilm 1993. And tllere ls more dlt8 pouring In ead1 day.According to Kelntz. V'tRDS l1IC8IYla neerty half
of a '8rabyta elf clata-600,000 mega~ month.lln quantity of data requket the technical capadty 1o
pami II/Id eort relevant informetlon. lb lmplOV9 ueer ICXl8ll and multa. WROS nNeerdlelw Ylllldate data
nt.-comprtMd of hltlOrlcal ntcorda, meaoeconomlc tl/M 1811et, global markefng allcf lndU8)' re~
proyidH NMntilll looll lncludlng croa du 181 file linking, common querlet and Ph.D.-ltvwl IUJIPOflRobln
Greenwood, Ph.D.. a profMIOI' at Hlfvard Bualn1u Sehool, 11g1Ma that lMlOS pl'O'Jlda er.ta In 1 unique
D'lldln, ltill Unmll by 01hlr dm!a MMC*l."lt WH l'Cllllly the only place In wtllCh one CWd get Good atock reti.m
and flnWIClel clala on U.S. companla In 1 clatabllla form lht wu aocesall:lle to IDdlmlc UHJS, taYt the
decadelong WRDS UHr. r don't ltiink anyone 1X11MS do1e In tenm of the Joint e11pablllly to _ . aB hA
dihrent typet of dllla compared Ytfth WRDS. "The tnanclal lndualry II alto 1aldng note.Doug Borden of Knlflll
Capital Amaricaa LlC lllYI his organllAltion reached aut to WRDS for en 8119lyels of equity tr.119 data golrig 119Ck
to 1993, 'Miich II now lllH In its cll8nt p1'8111nlaticns.
'Due to the complexly of th datll .nd the ... sheet quantity of comput.uon l'9ql.llred 1o procea1 the dlla, [Knight
Capital .Arneric:a) aked around In the lnc:Mtry to'" If 10111eone coUd help them pn>Oltll the [NYSE tade and
qualB) fl.ta ... and either people were not ctpable of hlndllng the In of the prc]tct or ti would take them toe
long .... Wa were able to delver 1119 pl'Oject In 10 days, recafta Flllda Sor111 Dnlchsw, G'07, WRDS
191Ul'Cher.
This la just Iha btQlmlng. WRDS ~to cieata innovat!V'e producl.t aimed at Dlttfng and flrattime ac:edlmlc
lnvntment benka, hedge funda, econcmlc c:onsullantl and ltlgatlcn auppcrt lr!M,
llCCCl'dlng tD Ralllh Mounawl, Ph.D., a ll\W)$ ......-cher.
and c;orpo,.le cllenta. euch u
Aa part ot ill aervloe, WRDS provldel more than Iha ftnll a-rto 1111n. II placM hlllll)' emphllll en
trantptnn:y, Oiiing the algortlhma and oodel UMd lo analyze data. IM{DS' cpfl!MOlllCI cullura II &nq111,
acoordlng tu Maunawl.
"WI provide the data u Ill, Ytflhout any manipulation. Wt dei!Yar add-on rnnrial that lella UMrl If there 1111 S'ff
b l - er CClllClllW ,.lllinG lo tha data ... and we provida IOUllnea and documentation that raplJcata pw-mlewlcl
academic papera: Mouaaawl uye.

lhlll add-on material alow9 users to run Mr own analyaq and conllrm lndlng1, having V9IY 1811 and practicll
lmpllcatlons. And as th number or '8rBl1yl8I that 'MIDS holte contlnLllS to climb, the organization his put 1n
lncr9aaing enll)huls on lnlUltng th u181'1 have the ablly to perform tnar own .....at.
To do thl1, WROS hea lawnigecl l'8IOUl'CM that only the Unlveraity of P9nnlylvanla e11n provide. A1tM ~
811 SEC filing~Jng mort than 12 mlDon-\\RDS partrwed with the Department ofU~ In Penn'
School of Ml and Sclancee lo apply ling'*lic and natural llngu8(18 pnlCISl/ng llllighta to the pnng of the SEC
tllngs.
Thia ftngulallc PtOCMU111 hllpa WRDS connect Iha SEC tlllng1 wHh dalll In rnullJple other detabuaa, cruting a
lnnCVltive that Iha SEC hll become a IM{DS client eo It cen ac:ca111ta
own clatll In an euler-to- ine tormet.
1110111 compllt9 anafy911. ll1e PIOlacl la
'
Part of big data for ua ii nctJUlt unlltll'ltlndlng unsfructut8d data, but lfa 1'91a!lng data fn:m a wide Ylliety of
eourcea, Kelntz mcplalne.
IM{DS brings 1n el8menl d Wlartcn'1 IC8demlc rigor to the PI009ll.
"Wt Uke to lllllllya .-yth!ng from a deep hiltolfcal procaN. W. try to dllC91T1 the trends, going bee* 50 yea11
eicplalna Den~ Glmhltov, Ph.D., another RllNl'dlllr at WRDS.
aoo:
Thia laborioua approach Items from WRDS'1 home at the Wharton School, a wall aa lltmf being '"811'Cfhera and
Case ID: 150401651

!of3

http://www.whartonwrds.com/2013/02/06/wharton-research-data-serv..
~ WA.Y-WITH WRDS I WRDS
academics. Holding tdvanced degree. WRDS ~11'1 INctl and publlall In 11n111oe and buakll end often
have ~oe In the CCHpOnlte work!.
"11'1 really lmpreaalve what th9y'Ye done. You know, nobody had lo do this, but It' been a trtmendoUI [uset}.
Thl'f llttd a huge llllP." pralled Harvard' Greenwood,
Case ID: 150401651

3 of3
tn/2015 4:31 PM
VERIFICATION
,<,}~~)c:f:X:tt~1'llid\~by
)t~r~:::i~' \,,
Fi,f e
. \i =~:l
ii
I, Paul Ratnaraj, verify that the statements made in the foregoing
Compf~,
J~f"
~':-,,
my knowledge, are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein at
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. '4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
Date:
Case ID: 150401651
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/04)
CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required hy law, except
as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for
the u ose of initiatin the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a)
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFF
(b)
County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff

Attorney's (Firm Name, Address. and Telephone Number)
NOTE: lN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES,
Eric Kraeutler
Deborah W. Frey
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
215.963.5000
II. BASIS OF JU(JCTION
0
O2
P~a~~~1~mmcnl
~3
US Govcmmcnt
Defendant
Attorneys
(Placean"X"mOncBoxOnly)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Placcan"X''inOneBoxfor

(For Diversity Cases Only}
l~~~.~I ~~~~::cnt Not a Pany)
PTF
I
"""'"-"'~IQ
OJ\crs1iy
O3
Citizen or Subject ofa Foreign

Countrv
IV. NATURE OF SUIT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
CONTRACT
110 Insurance
120 ~arinc
130 MmcrAct
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Rcc-0vcry of Defaulted
Studcn1 Loans
(Exel. Vcrerans)
15.1 Recovery of Overpayment of
Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 01her Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
Rf.AL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 F orcclosurc
230 Rem Lease & l-~jcctment
240 Torts to Land
245 Ton Product Liability
290 All Other Real Propeny
TORTS
D JJO
D )40
D 345
D 350
D 355
D 360
Liability
1\ssuuh, Libel&
Slander
Federal Employers'
Liability
Marine
Marine Product
Liability
Motor Vehicle
Motor Vchicl1J Product
Liability
Other Personal Injury
CIVIL IUGHTS
D 441 Voting
0 442 Employment
0 44.'l Ifousing;
Accommodations
0 444 Wclfore
Employment
0 446 Amer, w/Disabilitics
V.
ORIGIN
PERSONAi, JNJURY
D 362 Personal Injury - Med.
Malpractice
0 365 Personal Injury - Product
Liabilitv
0 J68 Asbcst;s Pcrsonal Jnjury
Product Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 01her Fraud

D 371 Truth in Lending
D 380 01hcr Personal Property
Dt1mage
D 385 Prop1Jny Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
Habeas Corpus:
0 5.'0 General
0 535 Ocath Penalty
0 540 Mandamus & Other
0 550 Civil Righ1s
0 555 Prison Condhfon
D 445 Amer. w/Disabilitics
DEF
I
o,
DJ
lncorporntcd or Principal Place of Business ln This

State
lncorporat.cd and Principal Plai:e of Business ln

Another Smtc
Os
Os
Foreign Nation
(Placcan"X"iuOncBoxOnly)
PERSONAL INJURY
D 310 Airplane
D 315 Ai "J)lanc Product
D 320
U~
(If Known)
Citizen ofThL'i Siatc
(Jndicatc Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
D
D
D
D
D
2598
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
( C)
16
The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania
Paul Ratnaraj
J.'ORFEITlJREJPENALTY
D 6 IO Agriculture
D 620 Other Food & Drug
0 625 Drug Rclirn.d Seizure of
Property 21
881
0 630 Liquor Laws
0 640 R,R. & Truck
0 650 Airline Regs.
D 660 Occupational Safety/Health
0 690 Other
use
l.AllOR
0 710 Fair Labor S1andards Act
0 720 l.abor!Mgnn. Relations
0 730 Labor/Mgmt. Reporting
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC l.'i8
423 Withdrawal
2s use 1s1
ROPERTY RIGHTS
0 Copyrights
30 Patent
&OisclosurcAet
D 740 Railway Labor Act
0
0
D
0
D
0 790 Other Labor Litigation

0 791 Empl. Rel. Inc.
Sccuriiy Act
0
0
SOCIAi, SEClJRITY
861 HIA (139511)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSl(4051g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
Defendant)
871 IRS- Third Party
26 use 7609
OTHER STATUTES
0 400 State Rcapponionmcnt
0
4 l 0 Antim1st
0 4.JO BanksandBanking
D 450 Commerce
0 460 Dcponation
0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Com1pt Organizations
0 480 Consumer Credit
D 490 CablciSat TV
0 8IO Sclcc1ive Service
D 850 Sccuri1ics/C(1mmoditiesf
Exchange
0 875 CusttJmer Chalk:nge
12USCJ410
0 890 Other Statulory Actions
0 891 Agricnltnrnl Acts

D 892 Fconomic Stabilizaiion Act
0 893 Environmental Matters.

D 894 Energy Allocation Act
0 895 Freedom oflnfonnation
Act
D 900 Appeal ol'F.:e
Dl."tcrmina1ion Under
Equal Access to Justice
0 950 Consrl1u1ionali1y of State

Siatutcs
Other
440 Other Civil Ri ts
(Pl can 'X" in One B' Only)
01
D 3
Original
Prolceding
Removed from
State Court
D 4
Remanded from
Appellate Court
Trunsforrcd from
another di:..irict
(spcc:il)')
Reinstated or
Reopened
D 7
D 6
Muhidl-.triet
Litigation
Appeal to District
Judge from
Magistrate
Jud m~nr
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you arc filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSEOF
28 u.s.c. 1441, 1446, 1454
VII.
Brief dcscri tion of cause: Ro aJt Dis ute Ari sin Under Patent and Co
REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
DATE: May 11, 2015
CHECK ff THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
ri 'ht Law
complaint:
OF.MANOS
UNDER F.R,CP. 23
$6 Million
(See ins
cs
No
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Eric Kraeutler
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT#---------
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP - - - - -
JUDGE----------
MAG.JUOGE_M_AY_11
2015

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11104}
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other
papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September
1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the
Clerk of Conrt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.
(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government
agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency
and then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides
at the time of filing. ln U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condenmation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an
"X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the
Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence,
and box I or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship
of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below,
IV.
is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one
nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (I) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.
Reinstated or Reopened. ( 4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When
this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge's decision.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite
VI.
Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553
jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.
Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.
Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
JD
15
259 8
Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD
Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 44 of 46
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
.FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 0
assignment to appropriate calendar.
LV ANIA -
DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of
Address of Plaintiff: Paul Ratnaraj, 100 Quail Hollow Drive, Sewell, NJ 08080
Address of Defendant: Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Center for Technology Transfer, 3160 Chestnut Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia,
PA 19104-6283
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:_:...P..:.h:.::il:.::a:.::d:.:e:.:Jlpc:.h:.::.:ia:.?.'-'P-'A-'-------------------------------------(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.l(a))
YesD
Docs this case involve multi district litigation possibilities?
Yeso
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
Case Number: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Judge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date T e r m i n a t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Civil cases arc deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
I. ls this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
No~
YesD
2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
action in this court?
No~
YcsD
3. Docs this case involve the validity or infringement ofa patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
YesD
terminated action in this court?
Nof1!;1
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro sc civil rights case filed by the same individual?
YesD
CIVIL: (Place
A.
NoJgi
V" in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
Federal Question Cases:
B.
Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
I.
2. o FELA
2.
Airplane Personal Injury
3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury
3.
Assault, Defamation
4. o Antitrust
4.
Marine Personal Injury
5. o Patent
5.
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
6. o Labor-Management Relations
6.
Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

Products Liability
7.
Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
D Civil Rights
7.
8. o Habeas Corpus
8.
Products Liability -
9. o Securities Act(s) Cases
9.
All other Diversity Cases

(Please specify)
le;ocial Security Review Cases
I . 'Ill
Asbestos
II other Federal Qu.estion Cases

Please specify) _C.::...::.op"'"y'-'r-"1g"-'h"'t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Categmy)
!,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,counsel ofrccord do hereby certify:
D Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of
$150,000.00 exclusive of in wrest and costs;
D Relief other than monetary damages is sought.
Attorney-at-Law
Attorney I.D.#
NOTE: A trial de nova will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
except as noted above.

DATE: _ _
M_a~y_1_1'-,2_0_1_5_ _
~(__~1-{~
/s/ Eric Kraeutler
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609 (5/2012)
32189
Attorney l.D.#
HAY 11 2015.
IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
Paul Ratnaraj
CIVIL ACTION
15
v.
NO.
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See l :03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255.
( )
(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
( )
(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.
( )
( d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.
( )
(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.
May 11, 2015
Date
215-963-5000
Telephone
Eric Kraeutler
Attorney-at-law
215-963-5001
FAX Number
(9
( )
Attorney for
ekraeutler@morganlewis.com
E-Mail Address
(Civ. 660) 10/02
tL~Y 11 2015

Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan
Section 1:03 -Assignment to a Management Track
(a)
The clerk of court will assign cases to tracks (a) through (d) based on the initial pleading.
(b)
In all cases not appropriate for assignment by the clerk of court to tracks (a) through (d), the
plaintiff shall submit to the clerk of court and serve with the complaint on all defendants a case management
track designation form specifying that the plaintiff believes the case requires Standard Management or
Special Management. In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the
plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to which that
defendant believes the case should be assigned.
(c)
The court may, on its own initiative or upon the request of any party, change the track
assignment of any case at any time.
(d)
Nothing in this Plan is intended to abrogate or limit a judicial officer's authority in any case
pending before that judicial officer, to direct pretrial and trial proceedings that are more stringent than those
of the Plan and that are designed to accomplish cost and delay reduction.
(e)
Nothing in this Plan is intended to supersede Local Civil Rules 40. l and 72.1, or the
procedure for random assignment of Habeas Corpus and Social Security cases referred to magistrate judges
of the court.
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CASE ASSIGNMENTS
(See 1.02 (e) Management Track Definitions of the
Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan)
Special Management cases will usually include that class of cases commonly referred to as "complex
litigation" as that term has been used in the Manuals for Complex Litigation. The first manual was prepared
in 1969 and the Manual for Complex Litigation Second, MCL 2d was prepared in 1985. This term is
intended to include cases that present unusual problems and require extraordinary treatment. See 0.1 of the
first manual. Cases may require special or intense management by the court due to one or more of the
following factors: (1) large number of parties; (2) large number of claims or defenses; (3) complex factual
issues; (4) large volume of evidence; (5) problems locating or preserving evidence; (6) extensive discovery;
(7) exceptionally long time needed to prepare for disposition; (8) decision needed within an exceptionally
short time; and (9) need to decide preliminary issues before final disposition. It may include two or more
related cases. Complex litigation typically includes such cases as antitrust cases; cases involving a large
number of parties or an unincorporated association oflarge membership; cases involving requests for
injunctive relief affecting the operation of large business entities; patent cases; copyright and trademark
cases; common disaster cases such as those arising from aircraft crashes or marine disasters; actions brought
by individual stockholders; stockholder's derivative and stockholder's representative actions; class actions or
potential class actions; and other civil (and criminal) cases involving unusual multiplicity or complexity of
factual issues. See 0.22 of the first Manual for Complex Litigation and Manual for Complex Litigation
Second, Chapter 33.

Penn Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Penn Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

.....

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MICHAELE. KUNZ, Clerk

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 46

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 46

irir 9, 17-19; id., Ex.

A. Indeed, although framed as

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 46

employed at the University, see id.

ifi! 5-8, raising the substantial issue of whether WRDS was

Third, removal is appropriate because Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim, at a

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 5 of 46

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 6 of 46

Isl Eric Kraeutler

Dated: May 11, 2015

Attorneys for Defendant Trustees of the

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 7 of 46

Gavin P. Lentz, Esq.

Isl Deborah W. Frev

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 8 of 46

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 9 of 46

BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 150401651

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 10 of 46

LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO

Case ID: 150401651

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 11 of 46

For Prothonotarv Use Onlv <Docket Number\

Civil Cover Sheet

TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS

TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS

Transfer From Other Jurisdictions

Minor Courl Appeal

More than $50,000.00

CASE TYPE AND CODE

STATUTORY BASIS FOR CAUSE OF ACTION

RELATED PENDING CASES (UST BY CASE CAPTION AND DOCKET NUMBER)

Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant:

Papers may be served at the address set forth below.

NAME OF PLAINTIFPS/PETITIONER'S/APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY

SUPREME COURT IDENTIRCATION NO.

SIGNATURE OF FILING ATTORNEY OR PARTY

FINAL COPY (Approved by the Prothonotary Clerk)

17, 2015, 12:42 pm

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 12 of 46

BOCHETIO & LENTZ, P.C.

Bryan R. Lentz, Esquire

1524 Locust Street

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

100 Quail Hollow Drive

JVRY TRIAL DEMANDED

Center for Technology Transfer

Case ID: 150401651

Case 2:15-cv-02598-JD Document 1 Filed 05/11/15 Page 13 of 46

Defendant, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("Defendant" and/or

Mr. R.atnaraj is an accomplished professional in the area of database management

Mr. Ratnaraj was first employed by the University of Pennsylvania in 1992.