HLED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA,,

Alexandria Division

mi m '"'* HAfl 2*1 P 2-

RHT CONSULTING, LLC,

Plaintiff,

)
) )

ALE;.,. SPJWCTCOu, u^lH&f1

Civil Action No.: / - /Jl C\Z33I

v.

ADVANCED CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC,

d/b/a ADVANCED CLINICAL, Defendant.

)
)
)

LJY}>

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant Advanced Clinical Services, LLC d/b/a Advanced Clinical ("Advanced"), by

counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441, 1446, 1331 and 1332, hereby remove this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, on the
following grounds:

1.

The Complaint seeks damages for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as well as various state court causes of action under Virginia law, related

to the alleged infringement or misappropriation of Plaintiffs intellectual property, including trade secrets and patent infringement. See Complaint, attached hereto. For these alleged

violations, Plaintiff seeks $6,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, and punitive damages in the
amount of S300,000.00. Complaint H48(c).

2.

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that it is a limited liability company organized

under the Commonwealth of Virginia. Complaint, 1| 1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs

sole member is a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

3.

Advanced is alleged to be, and at all times relevant hereto is and has been, a

limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Illinois. Its sole member is an
Illinois limited liability company. Thus, for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, Advanced is a citizen of the state of Illinois. See Complaint ^| 2.
4. On or about February 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court for

Fairfax County, Virginia.

5.

Advanced has not been formally served with the Complaint, but received a copy

of the Complaint on February 28,2012.

6. County. Defendant timely filed a Notice of Removal with the Circuit Court of Fairfax

7.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 as

Plaintiffs claims of patent infringement arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq.
8. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 as

Plaintiff and Defendant are not citizens of the same state and the amount in controversy exceeds
575,000.00.

9.
1446.

Removal of this action is timely and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and

10.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of the filing of this Notice of

Removal has been provided promptly to Plaintiff.

11.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), written notice of the filing of this Notice of

Removal has been provided promptly to the Clerk ofthe Circuit Court for Fairfax County.
12. A copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon Advanced in this action

are attached as Exhibit A.

13.

The initial Complaint did not seek a trial by jury and Advanced has not yet

answered the Complaint. Respectfully submitted,

ADVANCED CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a ADVANCED CLINICAL,

By Counsel,

J^priifer'L. Sarvadi, Esquire (VSB No. 47543)

LECLAIRRYAN

2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

(703) 647-5930 Direct (703) 647-5980 Fax
Jennifer.Sarvadi@leclairrvan.com

Counselfor Advanced Clinical Services, LLC

d/b/a Advanced Clinical

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal (Federal) was sent

via regular mail, postage prepaid, on this -^ ' day of March, 2012 to:
James N. Markels, Esquire Jackson & Campbell, P.C.

1120 20,h Street, N.W.

South Tower, Third Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036 Counselfor PlaintiffRHTConsulting, LLC

soc
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

CIRCUIT COURT OFFAIRFAX COUNTY

4110 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030

703-691-7320

(PresO.Preu 1)

RHT Consulting LLC vs. Advanced Clinical Services LLC

CL-2012-0002925

TO:

Advanced Clinical Services LLC

dba Advanced Clinical

10 Parkway North Suite 350

DeerfieldlL 60015

SUMMONS -CIVIL ACTION

The party upon whom this summons and the attached complaint and motion are served is

hereby notified that unless within 21 days after such service, response is made by filing in the Clerk's office ofthis Court apleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be taken as admitted and the court may enter an order, judgment or
decree against such party cither by default orafter hearing evidence.
APPEARANCE IN PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED BY THIS SUMMONS.

Done in the name ofthe Commonwealth ofVirginia, on Monday, February 27,2012.

JOHN T. FREY, CLERK

Deputy Clerk

Plaintiffs Attorney James N. Markels

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FAIRFAXCOUNTY

RHT CONSULTING, LLC,

43988 Indian Fields Court,

Leesburg, Virginia 20176,

Plaintiff,

20 12
Civil No.

02925

ADVANCED CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ADVANCED CLINICAL, 10 Parkway North, Suite 350, Dccrfield, Illinois 60015,
SERVE ON:

Secretary of the Commonwealth, Service of Process Department, Post Office Box 2452, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2452,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, RHT Consulting, LLC ("RHT"), by and through its

undersigned counsel, and, for this Complaint to seek an injunction preventing the Defendant,

Advanced Clinical Services, LLC d/b/a Advanced Clinical ("Advanced Clinical") from violating
RHT's contractual and patent rights to the process and framework known as Industry Leading
Research and Development Performance ("ILRDP") as well as other RHT-owned intellectual

property, and damages resulting from such violations, and in support thereof states and alleges as
follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION and VENUE

1.

RHT is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.

2.

Advanced Clinical is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the
State of Illinois.

3.

The contract at issue in this case specifically designates the "state or federal courts

of Virginia located in the County of Fairfax" as theproper forum for adjudication.

In addition, this Court hasjurisdiction under Va. Code 17.1-513.

4.

Personal jurisdiction over Advanced Clinical is founded under Va. Code 8.01 328.1, as well as the subject contract.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5.

With the goal of improving Life Sciences (pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics and device) companies' business and shareholder success, RHT

developed a process known asILRDP. ILRDP is a diagnostic framework by

which Life Sciences companies can select theright Research and Development
(R&D) investments (e.g., drugs, devices, diagnostics, biologies, vaccines, etc.),
streamline their subsequent development, and increase product quality and
success rates while reducing costs.

6.

RHT also developed several pieces of intellectual property that Advanced Clinical
is advertising on its website as it relates to optimizing clinical trial success
through Contract Research Outsourcing services.

7.

On November 4, 2009, RHT and Advanced Clinical entered into a "Non-

Disclosure NDA for a Consulting Engagement/Potential Consulting Engagement"

contract ("NDA"). A true and accuratecopy of the NDA is attached hereto as
Exhibit One.

8.

By itsexplicit terms, the NDA protected from use and disclosure any confidential

information provided by RHT and/or Advanced Clinical to the other, in

anticipation that the parties would later enter into a business engagement whereby
RHT would provide consulting services to Advanced Clinical.

9.

Specifically, the NDA provides that Advanced Clinical would not use any
confidential informationdisclosed by RHT "(a) for its own benefit or that of a

third parry; (b) to [RHT's] detriment; or (c) in any manner other than to perform
the (anticipated] Engagement."

10.

The NDA also provides that "all applicable intellectual property rights embodied

in the Confidential Information shall remain the property ofthe Disclosing Party."
11. From November 5. 2009, toApril 13, 2011, RITT provided consulting services to
Advanced Clinical. During this time, RHT provided confidential information to
Advanced Clinical, including information about ILRDP. Advanced Clinical stored

that information on its computers and advertised/is currently advertising ILRDP

on its corporate website, blog, and various social media websites.

12.

ILRDP is a methodology and framework that derives independent economic

value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being
readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts thatare reasonable

under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, including the NDA. The workings
of ILRDP are housed in an Excel file with software coding and a Word document.

RHT has not provided a working version ofILRDP's Excel file to any other party
except Advanced Clinical and RHT's team, all of whom have also signed non
disclosure agreements.

13.

Advanced Clinical is currently advertising ILRDP on its website

(http://www.advancedclinical.com), on its blogs, on various social media sites

such as Facebook and Linkedln, and other outlets, without the authorization of
RHT.

14.

ILRDP is a trade secret as defined under Va. Code 59.1-336, et seq. RHT has
obtained a provisional patent over ILRDP as ofJuly 6, 2011, a true and accurate

copy of the notice thereof being attached hereto as Exhibit Two.

15. At no time did RHT and Advanced Clinical modify the terms of the NDA, nor

enter into any other contract that superseded, negated, or modified the terms of the
NDA.

16.

On or about April 13,2011, RHT gave 30 days' written notice of termination of its business relationship with Advanced Clinical.

17.

Pursuant to the NDA, RHT demanded that Advanced Clinical remove all mention

of ILRDP from its websites and advertising, delete all ILRDP information from its
computers, and return any such information to RHT.

18.

To date, Advanced Clinical has refused to comply with RHT's requests, and
continues to advertise on its website and elsewhere that it can deliver ILRDP to

customers, and continues to possess information concerning ILRDP on its

computers. Examples of Advanced Clinical's marketing of ILRDP on its website
and other locations are attached as Exhibit Three.

19.

Advanced Clinical is also advertising, without authorization by RHT and in direct

violation of the NDA, many other pieces of intellectual property on its website

that RHT created, such as the"OneTeam" approach; "End to End Program

Management"; "Delivery' Assets"; and so forth. That intellectual property

similarly derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by propermeans by, other
persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the
subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its

secrecy, including the NDA. This intellectual property qualifies as trade secrets as
defined under Va. Code 59.1-336, etseq.
COUNT I - Breach of Contract

20.

RHT adopts and incorporates by reference all allegationscontained within paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

21.

The NDA is a valid and enforceable contract.

22.

Advanced Clinical's unauthorized use and possession of ILRDP, as well as all other intellectual property belonging to RHT, violates the express termsof the
NDA.

23.
24.
25.

As a direct result of Advanced Clinical's actions, RHT has suffered damages.

Damages include brand confusion with potential loss of clients as a result.
Advanced Clinical was also able to use the ILRDP method and framework to
attract new talent to the company that would have otherwise been available to
RHT.

COUNT II - Violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 8 1125

26.

RHTadopts andincorporates by reference all allegations contained within

paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

27.

Advanced Clinical, without authorization and in violation of theNDA, continues to

advertise ILRDP to the public as a product it offers to customers.

28. Advanced Chnical, without authorization and in violation of the NDA, also has

provided a copy of ILRDP to a contractor who was not subject to RHT's NDA. 29. Advanced Clinical, without authorization and in violation of the NDA, also has a
copy of ILRDP on their server/hosting provider's server.

30.

Advanced Clinical's advertisements are likely to cause confusion, or to cause

mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Advanced

Clinical with RHT, and/or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Advanced

Clinical's possession and use of ILRDP by RHT.

31.

Advanced Clinical's unauthorized use of ILRDP constitutesunfair competition in

the marketplace, which is likely to cause confusion to consumers as to the origin

of ILRDP, or the affiliation, connection, or association of RHT to Advanced

Clinical, and wrongly implies that RHT sponsors or approves Advanced Clinical's

use of ILRDP in their advertising and marketing materials, or that Advanced

Clinical has a license to market and sell ILRDP, and thus is in violation of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

32.

As a directresult of the actions of Advanced Clinical, RHT hassuffered damages.

COUNT HI - Violation of Virginia Computer Crimes Act

33.

RHT adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained within

paragraphs 1 through 32 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

34. Through its computers and/or computer network, Advanced Clinical continues to

possess, use, and create copies of ILRDP and other intellectual property without
authorization and in violation of the NDA.

35.

Advanced Clinical's actions are with malicious intent to harm RHT.

36.

Advanced Clinical's actions with regard to ILRDP are in violation of Va. Code
18.2-152.4(A)(6).

37.

RHT has suffered damages as a direct result of Advanced Clinical's actions.

38.

RHT is entitled to itsdamages and costspursuant to Va. Code 18.2-152.4(12).

COUNT FV - Violation of Virginia Trade Secrets Act. Va. Code S 59.1-336. etsea.

39.

RHT adopts and incorporates by referenceall allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

40.

Advanced Clinical's violations ofthe NDA and continued improper possession and use of ILRDP and other intellectual property constitute misappropriation ofRHT's
trade secrets pursuant to Va, Code 59.1-336,et seq.

41.

Advanced Clinical's misappropriation was made in bad faith, and/or was willful and
malicious in nature.

42.

Asa direct result of themisappropriation of RHT's trade secret rights to ILRDP and
other intellectual property, RHThas suffered damages.

43.

In addition to damages, RHT isentitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Va. Code

59.1-337.

44.

RHT is entitled to itsreasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Va. Code 59.1 -338.1.
COUNT V - Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

45.

RHT adopts and incorporates by reference all allegations contained within paragraphs I through 44 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

46.

RHT will be irreparably harmed if Advanced Clinical is permitted to use, sell,

market, or distribute ILRDP to the public.

47.

The prejudice suffered by RHT if Advanced Clinical is permitted to continue to use, sell, market, or distribute ILRDP is far greaterthan any prejudice Advanced
Clinical might suffer if an injunction is issued to prevent such unauthorized uses
until such time has this matter is heard on the merits.

48.

RHT is entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing Advanced Clinical from

using, distributing, or marketing ILRDP as well as all of RHT's intellectual

property, eitherelectronically or in hard-copy, during the pendency of thiscase,

and a permanent injunction ordering Advanced Clinical to return all electronic

and/or hard-copy materials regarding ILRDP as well as all of RHT's intellectual

property in its possession, custody, or control to RHT, destroy and/or delete any
other such materials, and remove all mention of ILRDP as well as all of RHT's

intellectual property from any and all communications and marketing by

Advanced Clinical in any format, electronic or hard-copy. WHEREFORE, RHT respectfully requests the following:

a.

That this Court issue a preliminary injunction preventing Advanced Clinical from

violating RHT's rights over ILRDP as well as all ofRHT's intellectual property until such time
as a final order is entered in this case and all appeals, if any, resolved;

b.

That this Court issue a preliminary and/or permanent injunction preventing

Advanced Clinical from retaining, using, advertising, or otherwise possessing ILRDP as well as

all ofRHT's intellectual property in violation ofRHT's contractual and patent rights, and
ordering thatAdvanced Clinical return all such information and materials to RHT and

remove/delete such information and materials from all computers, hard-copy files, websites,

social media, advertising, and communications within the possession, custody, orcontrol of

Advanced Clinical;

c.

That this Court award RHT compensatory damages in the amount ofSix Million

Dollars (S6,000,000.00), and pimitive damages in the amount of $300,000.00; d. That this Court award RHT its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in

prosecuting this action; and

i. That this Court award RHT such other and further relief as the Court deems

necessary and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,
RHT CONSULTING, LLC

By Counsel:
JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C.

^.

James N. Markels (Virginia Bar #68399) jmarkels@jackscamp.com

1120 20th Street, N.W. South Tower, Third Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone:(202)457-1600 Facsimile: (202) 457-1678 Counsel for Plaintiff