A Harvard University Ph.D. graduate has filed a lawsuit against the school and a current professor for $10 million for an alleged breach of contract and fraud, the Harvard Crimson reported.
Mark G. Charest has claimed he was not properly compensated for a discovery following his research on synthetic tetracycline antibiotics in chemistry and chemical biology professor Andrew G. Myers' laboratory.
Charest claimed in his complaint filed last Friday that he was coerced into signing a royalties compensation agreement that paid him far less than Harvard's policy had he not signed. Charest received his Ph.D. in 2004 and signed the agreement a year later.
The lawsuit also claims a percentage of Charest's royalties was allocated in 2009 to a new patent which did not list him as an author and for which he has not received compensation. He lost an appeal and 45 percent of his compensation was reallocated.
Harvard spokesman Kevin Galvin told the Crimson Tuesday the university had followed the school's intellectual property policy in Charest's case.
"Harvard's intellectual property policy was properly designed, and appropriately implemented with respect to Dr. Charest and his contribution to the advances in synthetic tetracycline antibiotics that occurred in Dr. Andrew Myers's laboratory," he said in a statement.
In the statement, Galvin also said Charest and the three non-faculty colleagues had "all approved of the royalty share that they received."
Of the 2009 instance, Galvin stated Charest "agreed to abide by Harvard's appeals process regarding the reallocation of royalties once Harvard licensed a second patent for an invention in which Dr. Charest played no part: A panel of disinterested faculty experts reviewed and rejected Dr. Charest's assessment of the value of his personal contribution to the tetracycline inventions."
Brian O'Reilly, Charest's attorney, told the Crimson his client "never agreed to abide by the Harvard appeal panel decision."
O'Reilly also stated the appeal panel did not dispute his client's personal contribution to the antibiotic.
"No one, including the appeal panel, has ever disputed Dr. Charest's personal contribution to the groundbreaking tetracycline inventions," O'Reilly said. "The only issue the panel decided was the relative value of the pioneering tetracycline patents and the latter added method patent; a decision that was at odds with Harvard's [intellectual property] policy."
In a statement issued via e-mail, Charest expressed his frustration with the university during the entire process.
"There has been a lack of collaborative spirit and transparency in the process from the outside," Charest said. "I have openly explored every avenue to work toward resolution of the various 'valuation issues' over the years."
