Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Foresight Diagnostics Inc.
5:24-cv-03972
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 16, 2025Background
- Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. ("Roche") accuses three former consultants, now Stanford oncologists, of misappropriating trade secrets to develop competing cancer detection technology while still working for Roche.
- The doctors formed Foresight Diagnostics Inc. ("Foresight") and collaborated with Stanford, which licensed the technology to Foresight.
- Roche alleges Stanford also misappropriated its trade secrets and improperly claims ownership of certain patent applications derived from Roche technology.
- Stanford sought to dismiss Roche's first amended complaint, challenging trade secret and ownership claims.
- The decision addresses Stanford's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), focusing on whether Roche has stated plausible claims against Stanford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade secret misappropriation by Stanford (Counts 1 & 2) | Stanford knew or should have known about improper acquisition; doctors’ knowledge imputed to Stanford | Allegations are conclusory; no facts supporting Stanford’s knowledge or misappropriation | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| Identification and timeliness of trade secrets | Trade secrets sufficiently identified and claims timely | Claims time-barred, trade secrets not identified | Motion denied re: these arguments |
| Declaratory judgment regarding patent ownership (Count 10) | There is an active controversy about patent ownership | No subject matter jurisdiction; no justiciable controversy | Motion denied; claim stated |
| Incorporation of Stanford Policies into complaint | N/A | Stanford policies preclude Roche’s ownership claim | Not incorporated; court does not consider policies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for stating a claim under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (leave to amend should generally be granted unless amendment is futile)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (pleading accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true in ruling on motions to dismiss)
- InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (elements and pleading standards for trade secret misappropriation)