uBeam Lawsuit

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Nora Dweck sued Meredith Perry for membership interest in the company.

Text of uBeam Lawsuit

  • Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 25

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

    NORA LILY DWECK,4615 Oceanfront WalkMarina del Rey, California 90292,

    PLAINTIFF,

    v. I CIVIL ACTION NO.

    MEREDITH E. PERRY,83 Berkley Avenue JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDBelle Mead, New Jersey 08502,

    DEFENDANT.

    COMPLAINT

    Plaintiff, Nora Lily Dweck, by counsel, as and for her Complaint, individually and

    derivatively, against Defendant, Meredith Perry, states and alleges as follows:

    THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

    1. Plaintiff, Nora Lily Dweck (hereinafter "Dweck"), is an individual who is a

    citizen of the State of California and who presently resides at 4615 Oceanfront Walk, Marina del

    Rey, California 90292.

    2. Defendant, Meredith E. Perry ("Perry") is an individual who, upon information

    and belief, is a citizen and resident of the State of New Jersey and resides at 83 Berkley Avenue,

    Belle Mead, New Jersey 08502.

    3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, because

    there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy

    exceeds $75,000.00.

  • Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 25

    4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Perry pursuant to applicable

    Pennsylvania law including, but not limited to, 42 Pa. C.S. 5322, in that, among other things,

    Perry transacted business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, caused harm and injury by acts

    and omissions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and otherwise engaged in conduct while a

    student at the University of Pennsylvania and thereafter which gives rise to personal jurisdiction

    over her.

    Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(A)(2), because a

    substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

    FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    6. In or about September, 2006, Dweck enrolled in and became a full-time student at

    the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Except for a leave of absence, she

    remained as a full-time student at the University of Pennsylvania until her graduation in May,

    2011.

    7. In or about September, 2007, Perry enrolled in and became a full-time student at

    the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Perry remained and continued as

    a full-time student at the University of Pennsylvania until her graduation in May, 2011.

    8. While at the University of Pennsylvania, Dweck and Perry met each other, were

    in the same comedy troupe known as Bloomers and for a period of time beginning in or about

    August 2010, were roommates, and became close personal friends.

    9. For several years and, most particularly in 2010, after they became roommates,

    and the first part of 2011, Dweck and Perry spent extensive time together sharing creative ideas

    and encouraging each other to come forth with creative ideas.

    2

  • Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 25

    10. At some time in 2010 during her senior year at the University of Pennsylvania,

    Perry had an idea for creating a different kind of laptop charger.

    11. Consistent with past and ongoing practices, Perry discussed her idea for a wireless

    charger with Dweck, just as they had routinely discussed their respective thoughts and ideas with

    one another on numerous occasions previously. They sought to encourage one another and to

    use their collective energies, intelligence, wisdom, and abilities to expand upon their respective

    thoughts and ideas and to endeavor to create a useful product.

    12. After discussing Perry's initial thoughts regarding a potential wireless charger,

    Dweck and Perry collaborated, brainstormed, and pooled their intellectual and other resources,

    and worked cooperatively together to see whether the idea could be developed into a marketable

    concept and product. They named the concept and the nascent product that they were working

    on collectively "uBeam."

    13. The uBeam product and concept was generated and evolved through Dweck's and

    Perry's collective and collaborative efforts. They initially proceeded as equals, as partners in the

    process. They held themselves out to others at least during the first five months of 2011 as

    equals and partners in the process with respect to uBeam.

    14. Dweck and Perry developed a concept of a uBeam "charge system." That charge

    system would have two components the uBeam Charge Station, which is an apparatus which is

    plugged into a wall socket and emits energy; and the uBeam Battery Adapter, which is plugged

    into electronic devices and receives and absorbs energy from the Charge Station.

    15. The uBeam Charge Station is, by way of analogy, like a speaker in a stereo

    system except, instead of emitting audio, it emits ultrasound. Ultrasound is a form of sound

    which can ultimately be converted into usable electrical energy. There is potential for ultrasound

    3

  • Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 25

    to be converted into usable energy with the help of an energy converter sometimes referred to or

    known as a transducer.

    16. The uBeam product potentially represents a substantial improvement and

    advancement for the electronic industry. The uBeam product, if developed as envisioned by

    Dweck and Perry working together, provides a remote charging modality as an alternative to

    electronic charging modalities typically used now plugging electronic equipment into a

    charger, plugged into an outlet. Perry and Dweck also thought of multiple applications

    including, for example, medical applications, for uBeam which were to be included within and

    protected by patent and included use of infrasound as a possible alternative to ultrasound.

    17. The uBeam product and approach has the potential to revolutionize the electronics

    industry.

    18. The uBeam product and approach has the potential to be worth substantial

    amounts, likely in the tens of millions of dollars.

    19. In addition to the work which they did collaboratively and for their benefit

    collectively in terms of developing the uBeam product and concept, Dweck and Perry also

    collaborated to develop a marketing strategy. That marketing strategy included, among other

    things, the concept of having both industrial and individual use models of their uBeam product.

    The industrial model would be intended for robust usage and commercial and public areas,

    whether coffee shops, book stores, train stations, airports, universities, apartment complexes, or

    otherwise. The personal model would be intended for single-person use in homes, offices, or

    small businesses.

    20. At the University of Pennsylvania there was in 2011, and had been during a

    number of prior years, a competition or contest known as PennVention. That is a program or

    4

  • Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 5 of 25

    competition which is and has been held annually by the Weiss Tech House, which is a hub of

    technological innovation at the University of Pennsylvania. The Weiss Tech House encourages

    and supports students in the creation, development, and commercialization of innovative

    technologies.

    21. Each year, PennVention accepts applications/proposals from those who want to

    participate in the program and have innovative inventions, technologies or services which they

    want considered during the competition. Entrants must be interested in and intending to start a

    business for their service or technology.

    22. Dweck and Perry entered the PennVention competition to be held in April, 2011.

    They submitted uBeam for evaluation and consideration during the PennVention competition.

    That submission was made by them as partners, jointly presenting uBeam.

    23. Prior to the PeimVention Final Competition, Dweck and Perry each spent

    considerable time and energy with respect to various aspects of uBeam including research,

    development, and creation of business and marketing analyses and proposals or plans. They

    each benefited from the work of the other and collaborated in their efforts.

    24. With respect particularly to the PennVention competition, Dweck and Perry each

    spent a considerable amount of time and energy, using their abilities, collaborating and preparing

    for the presentation to be made. Among other things, they co-authored a business plan which

    they submitted in an early phase or round of the competition. They also co-authored and jointly

    prepared their PennVention PowerPoint presentations. They held themselves out to those

    viewing the competition and evaluating the competitors and products as a collaborative team, as

    equal partners in the process with respect to uBeam. During the competition, they announced

    publicly that they were the "BeamTeam" and that their product was uBeam.

    5

  • Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 25

    25. As a result of their joint effort in developing and presenting uBeam in the

    PennVention competition, Dweck and Perry won the $5,000.00 First Prize. They also jointly, as

    a team, received four other awards: the Tapper Innovation Connect Award, with each of them

    receiving a round-trip plane ticket to London, hotel accommodations for two nights, $1,000 for

    expenses, and a private meeting to discuss their invention and product with the Chief