Neuropublic S.A. - Information Technologies v. Ladas & Parry LLP
1:24-cv-04156
S.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Neuropublic S.A., a Greek tech company, engaged U.S. law firm Ladas & Parry LLP (L&P) for advice and potential U.S. patent filing related to its telemeter station technology.
- L&P was authorized to conduct a novelty search but did so by sending the unredacted invention disclosure to a third-party firm, PatentManiac, without explicit client consent or confidentiality safeguards.
- In October 2020, Neuropublic received a Patentability Search Report from L&P identifying PatentManiac as the report's creator.
- Neuropublic later discovered a near-identical patent application filed in Australia by third parties and initiated suit claiming trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Neuropublic filed its federal claims more than three years after receiving the report, then filed this action in 2024 after learning the details of L&P's disclosure.
- L&P moved to dismiss all claims, asserting statute of limitations and jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTSA and Copyright Claims Timeliness | Didn’t discover misappropriation/infringement until 2023 | Claim accrued in 2020 with the Patentability Report | Claims time-barred; Neuropublic should have discovered |
| misappropriation in 2020 through reasonable diligence | |||
| Whether to consider Patentability Report | Report outside scope of amended complaint | Report integral and incorporated by reference | Court considers report; it’s integral to complaint |
| Exercise of Suppl. Jurisdiction on State Claims | State claims should proceed | Should be dismissed with federal claims | Declines exercise; dismisses state claims without prejudice |
| Diversity Jurisdiction for State Claims | N/A (not adequately pleaded) | Not established; possible non-diverse defendants | No diversity jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction refused |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for plausibility on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirements for pleading standards)
- Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (partnership citizenship and diversity jurisdiction)
- Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449 (diversity jurisdiction for partnerships)