A former University physics professor is suing the University for at least $7 million plus punitive damages, alleging the University sought patents for work he did outside the University and destroyed his personal laboratory equipment as retaliation for his criticism of school technology transfer policies.
According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court on Sept. 2, Thomas Mossberg assembled a “unique, precision research laboratory” during his previous employment at Harvard University. He then brought his laboratory equipment to the University under the condition that if he were to leave, he could take the equipment with him.
Mossberg came to the University as an associate professor of physics in 1987 after serving as an assistant professor and associate professor at Harvard.
He resigned from the University in September 2004 after a dispute over the University’s technology transfer policies. The complaint alleges that he demanded the return of his equipment. Instead of returning it, University employees allegedly disassembled and discarded portions of his laboratory, effectively destroying it.
According to the complaint, “it took approximately 30 years of man hours to assemble and custom fabricate the laboratory. – The time and expense involved in the re-creation of the laboratory prohibits someone of Mossberg’s age from establishing a new laboratory.” Mossberg is 54.
The $7 million is for both economic and non-economic damages, including “loss of employment opportunities, destruction of his unique laboratory, loss of personal property and emotional distress.”
The lawsuit names the University Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies Richard Linton, University General Counsel Melinda Grier, physics department head Davison Soper and five unidentified University employees as defendants.
University Director of Policy and Legal Affairs Randy Geller, speaking on behalf of Grier and Linton, directed media inquiries to Kevin Neely of the Oregon Department of Justice. Neely is a spokesman for the attorney general, who represents the University in legal cases and works with University attorneys.
“There’s not a whole lot I can say at this point,” Neely said. “Our attorneys are reviewing the lawsuit and investigating the facts.”
Soper said his lawyers advised him not to comment on the case.
“I think they’re a little skittish about us talking to the press,” he said.
In 1996, Mossberg co-founded Templex Technology, Inc. According to the complaint, the University, which was a shareholder in the company, granted Mossberg an unpaid leave from June 1999 through March 2000 to work full-time at Templex.
Mossberg resigned from his position as chief technology officer of Templex in October 1999 and spent the rest of his unpaid leave conducting private research. As a result of this private research, he invented planar holographic technology and applied for a patent in early 2000.
The complaint alleges the University initially claimed it owned the planar holographic technology, but later determined it did not.
In March 2002, Mossberg requested and was granted another unpaid leave to work with LightSmyth Technologies, Inc., another private company he co-founded. He currently serves as the company’s chief technology officer.
The complaint alleges that while Mossberg’s research at LightSmyth did not involve University funding or resources, Linton and Grier told him that much of the work was still subject to the University’s policies on intellectual property and technology transfer.
Mossberg left the University because the University would not confirm whether it intended to seek control of the patents he developed at LightSmyth, according to the complaint. It was after this point that the destruction of the laboratory allegedly occurred.
“I tried very hard to (dialogue) with UO administrators on the matters set forth in the suit, but I was unable to generate any significant interaction or meaningful discussion,” Mossberg said in an e-mail. “I hope the suit will generate discussion on matters related to invention, respect for faculty creativity and interactions between the University and the private sector.”
Mossberg added that strong connections with the private sector benefit University students by providing career opportunities and information on intellectual developments.
“Dr. Mossberg feels strong in his complaint, and he hopes he can effect change through this lawsuit,” Mossberg’s attorney J. Channing Bennett said.
“Let us hope that the present action leads to growth and insight making UO a greater and stronger institution,” Mossberg wrote.
Don Gerhart, director of technology transfer for the University, would not comment on Mossberg’s case, but he said that most of the University’s technology transfer policies come from federal and state laws.
“They don’t arise from the campus,” Gerhart said.
According to the Oregon Administrative Rules, all employees of Oregon University System institutions must sign rights to any invention developed using institutional facilities, personnel, information or other resources, as a condition of employment.
Gerhart said that some University professors have successfully obtained patents that belong to private companies or other institutions while employed by the University.
“We’ve got a lot of collaboration that goes on with the private sector and also with other institutions,” Gerhart said. “Increasingly, we’ve had some really good success in technology transfer from the University of Oregon, some really good engagement of our faculty with the private sector in a way that serves the public well.”
Bennett said the trial date is currently set for January but will likely be postponed. He said the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.
“I don’t think a timeline’s been established at this point,” Neely said.
[email protected]
News Editor Meghann M. Cuniff contributed to this report.