Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Foresight Diagnostics Inc.
5:24-cv-03972
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 16, 2025Background
- Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (“Roche”) alleges that former consultants—Stanford oncologists Drs. Diehn, Alizadeh, and Kurtz—misappropriated its trade secrets related to advanced DNA sequencing and cancer detection technologies.
- These consultants previously developed a technology (CAPP-Seq) at Stanford, licensed it to a startup (CappMed), and later sold CappMed and its intellectual property to Roche, which hired them as consultants and entered into restrictive agreements.
- The doctors allegedly founded Foresight Diagnostics while still working for Roche, and used Roche’s proprietary trade secrets to develop a competing cancer detection platform (PhasED-Seq), later licensed from Stanford to Foresight.
- Roche asserts that key trade secrets were used in Foresight’s products as evidenced, in part, by scientific publications and patent filings.
- The procedural posture is a motion to dismiss by Foresight, challenging timeliness, sufficiency of the trade secret allegations, and declaratory judgment about patent ownership.
- The complaint asserts federal and state trade secret claims, plus breach of contract and unfair competition, but the court addresses only Foresight’s motion to dismiss here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations on trade secret claims | Sufficient facts do not show Roche was on inquiry notice earlier | Publications (esp. Chabon 2020) triggered limitations period | Not time-barred; factual question not resolvable now |
| Sufficiency of trade secret identification | Detailed description/exhibits distinguish trade secrets from prior art | Not pleaded with sufficient particularity | Described with sufficient particularity at this stage |
| Sufficiency of misappropriation allegations | Alleged Foresight misused secrets via founders/doctors | No plausible link between founders’ acts and corporate liability | Plausible indirect misappropriation alleged |
| Declaratory judgment re: patent ownership | Alleged assignment to Roche in consulting and invention agreements | Stanford’s pre-existing policies preclude Roche’s ownership, not incorporated | Actual controversy and plausible claim pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausible pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and factual inference standard)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (complaint facts construed in plaintiff’s favor at motion to dismiss)
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Comput. Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (description of trade secrets with particularity)
- Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1161 (trade secret identification standard)
- InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (DTSA and CUTSA claims analyzed together, trade secret standard)