Kamdem-Ouaffo v. PepsiCo, Inc.
160 F. Supp. 3d 553
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, a pro se former temporary food scientist for PepsiCo (through staffing supplier Subex), alleges he created patentable aroma-delivery inventions while assigned to PepsiCo in 2008–2009.
- Plaintiff signed a staffing/IP agreement (Attachment B) assigning intellectual property to PepsiCo/Subex; Plaintiff claims the agreement is unenforceable and that PepsiCo removed his name from inventions and credited PepsiCo employees instead.
- PepsiCo filed patent applications (one issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,474,637) listing other inventors; Plaintiff sought correction of inventorship and later added ScentSational and Landau as defendants.
- Plaintiff brings claims for unenforceable contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, correction of inventorship, and defamation; prior state-court suit (arising from the same employment period) adjudicated contract/termination-related claims.
- The Court considered motions to dismiss by PepsiCo/Given/Zhang and by ScentSational/Landau and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata / contract-related claims (unenforceable contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust) | Kamdem-Ouaffo says Agreement is invalid/unenforceable and he retained rights to inventions | PepsiCo argues those contract-based claims were or could have been litigated in prior state action and Agreement validly assigned IP to PepsiCo/Subex | Dismissed: claims barred by res judicata; alternatively fail on merits because Agreement is valid and precludes quasi-contractual remedies |
| Validity of Agreement / fraud, lack of mutual assent, indefiniteness | Plaintiff contends he never reviewed/full understood Agreement; alleges fraud in execution/inducement and ambiguity about compensation | Defendants point to Agreement terms, Attachment B assignment, New York law that signing binds parties, and heightened Rule 9(b) for fraud allegations | Dismissed on merits: Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations insufficient; no plausible fraud pleadings; non-signatory PepsiCo not bound by contract claims |
| Correction of inventorship (35 U.S.C. § 256) | Plaintiff claims he is true inventor and seeks correction for issued and pending patent applications | Defendants note plaintiff assigned his interests and cannot challenge pending/abandoned applications; district courts lack jurisdiction over pending applications | Dismissed: no jurisdiction to correct inventorship of pending/abandoned applications; for issued patent plaintiff lacks standing because he assigned away ownership |
| Defamation (statute of limitations and substance) | Plaintiff alleges a December 18, 2009 PepsiCo letter to OSHA/US government defamed him and attacked character; claims later discovery tolled limitations | Defendants argue the defamation claim is time-barred (one-year CPLR § 215) and, substantively, statements are nonactionable opinion or privileged | Dismissed: claim barred by one-year limitations (publication in 2009); alternatively fails on merits because contested statements are opinion/recitation of facts and not defamatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts disregard conclusory allegations in plausibility analysis)
- Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275 (res judicata elements)
- Waldman v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (transactional test for claim preclusion)
- HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharm. Indus. Co., 600 F.3d 1347 (no private right to challenge inventorship of pending application)
- Camsoft Data Sys., Inc. v. S. Elecs. Supply, Inc., 756 F.3d 327 (district court lacks jurisdiction over inventorship of unissued/abandoned patents)
- Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., 569 F.3d 1319 (standing requirements for § 256 inventorship claims)
- Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 1567 (assignment defeats standing to pursue patent claims)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where amendment would be futile)