Heller Ehrman LLP et al

Filing 20

ORDER ON 1 Bankruptcy Appeal - Affirming Bankruptcy Court - and GRANTING 13 Motion to Strike.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 12, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

IRIS BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Appellant,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

No. C 12-06232 JSW
ORDER GRANTING HELLER’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AND
AFFIRMING ORDER OF
BANKRUPTCY COURT

v.
HELLER EHRMAN LLP,
Appellee.

13

/
14
15

The matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the appeal filed by Appellant

16

and creditor, Iris Biotechnologies, Inc. (“Iris”), from the bankruptcy court’s order, dated

17

November 15, 2012, denying Iris’s motion to allow a late filing of a malpractice claim.

18

Appellee and debtor, Heller Ehrman LLP (“Heller”), has moved to strike certain documents that

19

Iris submitted in support of the appeal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-4, the Court deems this

20

case submitted on the papers without oral argument. After review of the record on appeal,

21

consideration of the parties’ papers, and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS

22

Heller’s motion to strike and AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND

23

Simon Chin (“Chin”) founded Iris on February 16, 1999, and acted as President and

24
25

CEO of the company. (Deposition of Simon Chin (“Chin Depo”) at 11:16-17.)1 Heller

26

previously represented Iris in various patent and corporate matters. (Record on Appeal (“RA”)

27

45, Declaration of Shelley Salinero (“Salinero Decl.”), ¶ 3.) James Fox (“Fox”), a former

28
All references to the deposition of Simon Chin derive from Record on Appeal
documents 23 and 25. All references to exhibits to the deposition of Simon Chin derive from
Record on Appeal documents 24 and 26.
1

1

associate at Heller, handled Iris’s patent matters and Bruce Jennet (“Jennet”), a former partner

2

at Heller, handled Iris’s corporate matters. (RA 45, Salinero Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

3

In 2000, Iris applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for a

4

patent on its artificial intelligence system for genetic analysis. (RA 18, Corrected Declaration

5

of Simon Chin (“Corrected Chin Decl.”), ¶ 4.) On April 7, 2006, Iris directed Fox to file a

6

patent continuation application, No. 11/399,733 (“PCA 11/399,733”), to broaden the scope of

7

claims advanced in the original patent. (Id., ¶ 5.) The USPTO issued Iris’s original patent on

8

June 13, 2006. (Id., ¶ 4.)

9

On August 16, 2007, Iris received a letter from Heller entitled “Disengagement As
Counsel To Iris Biotechnologies, Inc,” (“Disengagement Letter”), which purported to confirm

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

that Heller would no longer act as Iris’s counsel. (Chin Depo. at 78:19-25; Chin Depo., Ex. 8.)

12

On September 4, 2007, Jennet e-mailed Chin to wish him well. (Chin Depo., Ex. 11.) Chin

13

replied and acknowledged Heller’s work throughout the years. (Chin Depo. at 117:2-13.) On

14

November 5, 2007, Heller submitted a request to the USPTO seeking to withdraw as Iris’s

15

patent attorney of record. (RA 7, Declaration of Simon Chin (“Chin Decl.”), Ex. D.)

16

On November 21, 2007, Heller e-mailed Iris (“November E-mail”) to follow up on the

17

Disengagement Letter and requested instructions as to whom to transfer Iris’s patent files.

18

(Chin Depo. at 117:15-118:11; Chin Depo., Ex. 12.) On December 10, 2007, after it did not

19

receive a response from Iris about whom to transfer the files, Heller forwarded Iris’s original

20

patent files to Chin’s attention. (Chin Depo. at 118:5-9; Chin Depo., Ex. 13.) Heller delivered

21

and included documents relating to PCA 11/399,733 in the package of transferred materials.

22

(Chin Depo, Exs. 12-13.) Heller also drafted a letter (“Transfer Letter”) that advised Iris to file

23

all necessary change of address and powers of attorney forms with the USPTO for all matters

24

included in those materials. (Chin Depo., Ex. 13.) Subsequently, on December 20, 2007, Chin

25

e-mailed Fox to challenge and question Heller’s competence as a law firm in handling Iris’s

26

legal matters. (Chin Depo. at 135:23-140:1; Chin Depo, Ex. 14.)

27
28

On March 13, 2008, the USPTO denied Heller’s request to withdraw as Iris’s USPTO
attorney of record. (RA 8, Chin Decl., Ex. E.) The USPTO sent notices to both Heller and
2

1

Chin. (Id.) On March 21, 2008, the USPTO issued a notice of a non-final rejection of PCA

2

11/399,733 (“2008 Rejection Notice”) and advised that a timely filed Terminal Disclaimer

3

could be used to overcome the non-final rejection of PCA 11/399,733. (RA 9, Chin Decl., Ex.

4

F at 4.) Because Iris never filed change of address and power of attorney forms, the USPTO

5

sent the 2008 Rejection Notice to Heller. (Id. at 2.) On April 4, 2008, Heller allegedly

6

forwarded Chin the original 2008 Rejection Notice and warned Chin that Heller no longer

7

handled Iris’s patent matters. (RA 33, Declaration of Richard Anderson, ¶ 5, Ex. B.) The

8

bankruptcy court concluded that the record did not support a finding that Iris received this

9

document. (RA 68, Nov. 15, 2012 Hearing Tr. at 6:11-15.)
On October 7, 2008, the USPTO issued a notice of abandonment of PCA 11/399,733

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(“2008 Abandonment Notice”) for failure to respond to the 2008 Rejection Notice. (RA 13,

12

Chin Decl., Ex. J.) On October 10, 2008, Heller allegedly sent a letter to Chin that enclosed the

13

2008 Abandonment Notice from the USPTO and notified him again that Heller had ceased to

14

handle Iris’s legal matters. (RA 51, Declaration of Jennifer Vail, ¶ 4, Ex. B.) The bankruptcy

15

court also concluded that the record would not support a finding that Iris received this

16

document. (RA 68, Nov. 15, 2012 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-23.)

17

On December 28, 2008, Heller filed for bankruptcy relief. (RA 45, Salinero Decl., ¶ 7.)

18

Chin first learned about the Heller bankruptcy from the news. (Chin Depo. at 87:3-9.) By

19

2009, Iris ceased to communicate with anyone from Heller regarding its legal matters. (Id. at

20

151:14-21.) In fact, after Chin learned about Heller’s bankruptcy, Chin neither attempted to

21

personally contact Heller nor requested that anyone on his behalf contact Heller. (Id. at 153:12-

22

15.)

23

In 2009, Iris retained John Jeffrey (“Jeffrey”), a Canadian patent attorney, to correspond

24

with the Canadian Patent Office and review the prosecution of related United States and

25

European patent applications. (Chin Depo. at 220:4-20; Chin Depo, Ex. 27.) In 2009, Jeffrey

26

forwarded a report to Chin that detailed the status of Iris’s United States and European patent

27

applications and that included information about PCA 11/399,733. (Chin Depo. at 233:1-25.)

28

Chin did not review these materials until June 2011, due to “more important things.” (Id. at
3

1

260:5-8.) Once Chin reviewed Jeffrey’s report, Chin instructed Jeffrey to apply for re-issuance

2

and broadening of a Canadian patent with the Canadian patent office. (Id. at 265:22-266:6.)

3

The Canadian patent covered the same invention set forth in PCA 11/399,733. (Id. at 157:1-6.)

4

As a result of Jeffrey’s attempt to re-issue and broaden the Canadian patent, in August 2011,

5

Jeffrey reported back to Iris that PCA 11/399,733 had been abandoned. (Id. at 266:2-5; Chin

6

Depo. Exs. 4, 21.)

7

On April 23, 2012, Chin contacted Tom Willoughby (“Willoughby”), counsel for the

(Corrected Chin Decl., ¶ 17.) Willoughby informed Chin that the deadline to file a malpractice

10

claim expired on April 27, 2009. (Chin Depo. at 188:20-25., Chin Depo., Ex. 23.) On April 30,

11
For the Northern District of California

Heller Creditors Committee, to discuss his view that Iris had a malpractice claim against Heller.

9

United States District Court

8

2012, Iris sent Willoughby a letter outlining Iris’s malpractice claim against Heller. (Chin

12

Depo., Ex. 4.) Willoughby referred the matter to special counsel for the bankruptcy plan

13

administrator, and, on June 11, 2012, the special counsel rejected Iris’s malpractice claim citing

14

to Iris’s failure to file a claim before the claims bar deadline. (Chin Depo., Ex. 23.) The special

15

counsel also rejected Iris’s malpractice claim because Iris filed an untimely claim that

16

contravened Heller’s approved bankruptcy plan order and because Heller would experience

17

prejudice from the delayed claim. (Id.)

18

On August 20, 2012, Iris filed a motion to allow a late filing of a malpractice claim in

19

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. (RA 1, Iris Motion

20

to Allow Late Filing.) Following oral argument, the bankruptcy court denied Iris’s motion and

21

set forth its finding on the record. (RA 68, Nov. 15, 2012 Hearing Tr. at 3:22.) On November

22

20, 2012, the bankruptcy court issued an order that denied Iris’s malpractice claim for the

23

reasons set forth on the record. (Id.)

24

The Court will address additional facts as necessary in the analysis.

25
26
27
28

ANALYSIS
A.

Heller’s Motion to Strike.
Heller moves to strike two documents submitted by Iris that it claims are not part of the

record on appeal. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006 provides that the record on
4

1

appeal “shall include the items designated by the parties, the notice of appeal, the judgment,

2

order, or decree appealed from, and any opinion, findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the

3

court.” Papers not filed with the bankruptcy court or admitted into evidence by that court are

4

not part of the bankruptcy clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal. Cf.

5

Kirshner v. Uniden Corporation of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting

6

similarly that papers not filed in the district court or admitted into evidence by that district court

7

are not part of the district clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal).

8

1.

9

In support of its opening brief, Iris submitted a declaration from Daniel R. Sterrett, dated

Exhibit 3 to the February Declaration of Daniel R. Sterrett.

February 1, 2013. Heller moves to strike Exhibit 3 to that declaration. Exhibit 3 outlines the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

transaction history for PCA 11/399,733 from April 2006 to January 2012. Although Exhibit 3

12

does not contain a bankruptcy court docket number, Iris alleges that Heller previously filed and

13

asked for judicial notice of a similar print out from the USPTO’s website. (RA 29, Heller

14

Request for Judicial Notice (“Heller RJN”), Ex. 1.) Although both documents derive from the

15

USPTO website, the parties actually submitted different documents from different tabs on the

16

website. Because both parties neither filed nor designated Exhibit 3 with the bankruptcy court,

17

Exhibit 3 cannot be construed as part of the record on appeal.

18

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Heller’s motion to strike Exhibit 3. Although the

19

Court grants the motion to strike, the Court notes that the information upon which Iris sought to

20

include - that Heller remained the counsel of record in the USPTO’s records until September

21

13, 2011 - is contained within the document that Heller submitted in support of its Request for

22

Judicial Notice. (See Heller RJN, Ex. 1.)

23

2.

24

Heller also moves to strike Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Daniel Sterrett, dated March

Exhibit 1 to the March Declaration of Daniel R. Sterrett.

25

22, 2013 (“Exhibit 1”), which Iris submitted in support of its reply brief. Exhibit 1 details

26

Heller’s billing and invoice statements to Iris for services rendered from January 1987 until

27

April 2008. Although Iris previously designated with the bankruptcy court the billing

28
5

1

statements dated April 2008, Iris failed to file or designate with the bankruptcy court the billing

2

statements dating back to January 1987.

3

Iris asserts that a May 20, 2008 e-mail included an attachment of the billing statements

4

dating back to January 1987. (See RA 12, Chin Decl., Ex. I) Iris argues that this 2008 e-mail

5

provides sufficient grounds to incorporate the entirety of the billing statements into the record

6

on appeal and deny the motion to strike. However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

7

Procedure 8006, the Court cannot allow Iris to create a new record on appeal. Cf. Kirshner, 842

8

F.2d at 1077 (noting that papers not filed in the district court or admitted into evidence by that

9

district court are not part of the record on appeal). The Court also notes that even if the Court
allowed the additional billing statements into the record, it does little to further Iris’s arguments

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

that Heller continued to represent Iris, notwithstanding Heller’s prior Disengagement Letter.

12

(Compare Sterrett Decl., Ex. 1 at 33 with Chin Depo., Ex. 8) (showing that August 31, 2007

13

represented Heller’s last billing entry and August 16, 2007 marked the date of Heller’s

14

disengagement as counsel). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Heller’s motion to strike Exhibit

15

1 insofar as it includes billing statements for dates prior to April 2008.

16

B.

Appeal of Bankruptcy Court’s Order Denying Iris’s Motion to File a Late Claim.

17

1.

18

District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and

Standard of Review.

19

decrees of bankruptcy judges. 28 U.S.C. § 158. The Court reviews for abuse of discretion a

20

bankruptcy court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for an extension of time to file a claim on

21

the grounds of excusable neglect. See Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd.

22

Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 398 (1993) (“To be sure, were there any evidence of prejudice to

23

petitioner or to judicial administration in this case, or any indication at all of bad faith, we could

24

not say that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in declining to find the neglect to be

25

excusable.”) (internal citations omitted); cf. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F. 3d 853, 858 (9th Cir.

26

2004) (reviewing district court’s decision to grant motion for extension of time to file appeal

27

based upon excusable neglect for abuse of discretion”). The Court must affirm unless it has the

28

definite and firm conviction that the lower court committed a clear error of judgment in the
6

1

conclusion it reached after weighing the relevant factors. Pincay, 389 F. 3d at 858 (citing Marx

2

v. Loral Corp., 87 F. 3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608,

3

612 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e reverse under the abuse of discretion standard only when the district

4

court reaches a result that is illogical, implausible, or without support in the inferences that may

5

be drawn from the record.”).

Iris argues that the bankruptcy court erred when it denied its motion for leave to file a

8

late malpractice claim based upon excusable neglect. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure

9

9006(b)(1) empowers a bankruptcy court to permit a late filing if the movant’s failure to comply

10

with an earlier deadline resulted from “excusable neglect.” Because Congress has not provided

11
For the Northern District of California

2.

7

United States District Court

6

guidance to determine what sorts of actions constitute excusable neglect, the Court’s

12

“determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances

13

surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. These circumstances include:

14

“the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial

15

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of

16

the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id.; see also Pincay 389 F.3d at 855.

17

Iris only takes issue with the bankruptcy court’s application of the third Pioneer factor – the

18

reason for the delay. Under the third Pioneer factor, the Court must consider Iris’s reason for

19

the delay and examine whether the delay remained within Iris’s reasonable control. See

20

Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395; Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858.2

The Bankruptcy Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion.

Iris contends that the record shows that Heller remained counsel of record for Iris, made

21
22

misrepresentations to it, omitted material information and, thus, argues that Heller actually

23

caused Iris’s delay in filing a claim. In support of this argument, Iris relies on In re Zilog, Inc.,

24

450 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir. 2006) and Challas v. Goetz, 2007 WL 3095418 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.

25
26
27
28

The other factors under Pioneer and Pincay requires the bankruptcy court to
examine the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact
on judicial proceedings, and the good faith intentions of the movant. See Pioneer, 507 U.S.
at 395; see also Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858. Iris does not specifically dispute the bankruptcy
court’s conclusions with respect to these factors. The Court also finds that the bankruptcy
court did not abuse its discretion in its analysis of these factors.
2

7

1

Oct. 19, 2007). However, in In re Zilog, the court of appeals found excusable neglect based

2

upon affirmatively misleading e-mails sent by Zilog attorneys that caused Zilog employees to

3

file untimely claims. 450 F.3d at 1006-1007. In this case, and despite remaining counsel of

4

record under the USPTO, Heller never relayed misleading statements. Rather, it repeatedly

5

advised Iris to protect its rights in, for example, the Disengagement Letter, the November E-

6

mail, and the Transfer Letter. The bankruptcy court also noted that Chin knew of Heller’s

7

dissolution, thought Heller lacked competence, and knew that information about Iris’ patents

8

existed on the USPTO website. This Court cannot say it was implausible for the bankruptcy to

9

conclude on that factual record that Heller was not the reason Iris delayed in seeking to file a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

late malpractice claim.
The Court also finds Iris’ reliance on Challas inapposite. There, the court addressed

12

whether a cause of action was discharged, pursuant to 11 U.S.C Section 1141(d), upon

13

confirmation of a bankruptcy plan. The answer to that question depended upon whether the

14

creditor had a “fair contemplation” that he might have had a claim against the debtor before

15

confirmation. Challas does not address or make rulings on what sort of actions constitutes

16

excusable neglect. To the extent Iris relies on Challas to argue that it was not aware of a

17

potential malpractice claim until well after Heller filed for bankruptcy, the Court finds Challas

18

distinguishable on its facts.

19

As the bankruptcy court recognized, Heller provided Iris with multiple warnings that it

20

should protect itself in order to avoid experiencing prejudice to its rights. (RA 68, Nov. 15

21

Hearing Tr. at 8:17-11:7.) Again, by way of example: the August 2007 disengagement letter

22

severing the attorney-client relationship between Heller and Iris; the November 2007 e-mail

23

inquiring where to transfer Iris’s legal files; the December 2007 delivery of Iris’s patent files;

24

and finally, the clear understanding that Heller filed for Chapter 11 dissolution in 2009. (Id.)

25

For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its

26

discretion when it concluded that these warnings supported its conclusion that Iris caused its

27

own delay in filing a claim as well as exerted reasonable control over the delay.

28
8

1

First, the bankruptcy court noted that the Disengagement Letter provided significant

2

caution to Iris. In particular, Heller explicitly stated that it would “no longer act as counsel to

3

Iris Biotechnologies, Inc., and [Heller would] have no further responsibility to render legal

4

services in connection therewith.” (Chin Depo., Ex. 8.) Heller did not, however, that it would

5

“remain available to confer with [Iris] or [Iris’s] new attorney to the extent necessary to avoid

6

prejudice to [Iris’s] rights.” (Id.) Moreover, Heller advised Iris that, “in connection with the

7

termination of [Heller’s] services for Iris, [Heller would], ... deliver files to [Iris], or to an

8

attorney whom [Iris] designate[s] in writing to receive the files.” (Id.) Heller explicitly

9

communicated to Iris its view that their attorney-client relationship had not only ended but also
that Iris needed to take steps to protect its rights. These cautionary statements, taken as a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

whole, negate Iris’s contention that Heller misled Iris and prevented Iris from filing a timely

12

malpractice claim. In actuality, Heller’s Disengagement Letter represents one of many

13

warnings that clearly informed Iris to protect its rights as well as left Iris with reasonable

14

control over filing a timely claim.

15

Second, the bankruptcy court noted that Heller warned Iris to protect its rights in its

16

November E-mail. In particular, Korey Mingus, a patent analyst at Heller, stated that “I would

17

like to take this time to follow-up with you regarding Mr. Jennett’s disengagement letter sent to

18

you on August 16, 2007. We have, as of yet, not received instructions as to whom to transfer

19

the patent files[.] ... We are therefore now preparing to transfer to your attention the patent

20

files[.] ... If you would like us to transfer these files to the attention of someone else, please

21

advise us by November 30, 2007.” (Chin Depo., Ex. 12.) At a minimum, the e-mail alerted and

22

reminded Iris that Heller had ceased to represent Iris in connection with its patent matters.

23

Iris’s failure to provide information to Heller about where to transfer Iris’s files, despite

24

Heller’s several attempts to acquire such knowledge, reinforces the conclusion that Iris exerted

25

reasonable control over the delay.

26

Third, the bankruptcy court noted that Heller’s Transfer Letter, sent in conjunction with

27

the transferred patent files, represented another warning to Iris to protect its rights and

28

emphasized that Iris exercised reasonable control over its delay. When Heller transferred Iris’s
9

1

patent files, Heller included files relating to PCA 11/399,733 in “Box 6” and stated Iris would

2

be responsible for filing all necessary change of address forms, power of attorney forms, and

3

extensions of time for all of the matters included in the transferred documents with the USPTO.

4

(Chin Depo., Ex. 13.) Heller also stated, “[w]e have not made copies of the files being

5

transferred. ... Also enclosed is a current docket. The information is considered accurate, but

6

should not be relied on without first reviewing the files. You should review all files promptly to

7

verify the status of each matter.” (Id.) Heller also provided Iris with all of Iris’s patent

8

documents. In an e-mail Chin sent to Fox on December 20, 2007, Chin even acknowledged

9

transfer and receipt of “six boxes of papers.” (Chin Depo., Ex. 14.) Despite Heller’s repeated
warnings and cautionary letters, Iris appears to rely on its ignorance of the contents of the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

transferred files as a basis to argue its neglect was excusable. However, the bankruptcy court

12

noted that the parties involved were a sophisticated, intellectual client and a dissolving law firm.

13

(RA 68, Nov. 15 Hearing Tr. at 8:17, 9:19.) It also noted that its conclusion might have been

14

different if “this was simply a dispute between a former client of an ongoing law firm.” (Id. at

15

9:8-10.) The Court cannot say that these facts, coupled with the warnings encompassed in the

16

Disengagement and Transfer letters render the bankruptcy court’s conclusion “illogical,

17

implausible, or without support in the inferences that may be drawn from the record facts.”

18

Kode, 596 F.3d at 612.

19

In any event, in the Transfer Letter, Heller clearly suggested that Iris review its files,

20

alerted Iris to take the necessary steps to ensure the proper handling of its legal matters, and

21

warned Iris of possible prejudice to its rights should it fail to comply. Moreover, because Heller

22

no longer retained control over Iris’s original files, the Court cannot find that the bankruptcy

23

court abused its discretion in concluding that Iris could have taken steps to protect its own

24

interests, or at the very least, understood that its rights would be compromised with continued

25

inaction. Iris simply failed to heed Heller’s warnings.

26

Fourth, the bankruptcy court noted that Chin’s knowledge of Heller’s dissolution

27

warned Iris once again of its need to protect its rights and further evidenced Iris’s control over

28

its delay in filing a claim. Chin testified he probably first learned about the Heller bankruptcy
10

1

from the news. (Chin Depo. at 151:5.) After 2009, however, Iris ceased to communicate with

2

anyone from Heller regarding its legal matters. (Id. at 151:17-18.) Chin neither attempted to

3

personally contact nor requested that anyone on his behalf contact Heller. This behavior

4

reinforces that Chin not only knew about Heller’s bankruptcy but also recognized that Heller no

5

longer represented Iris.

6

Fifth, the bankruptcy court also cited to the fact that Chin believed that Heller “lacked

7

competence.” Chin’s statement derived from an e-mail, dated December 20, 2007, that Chin

8

sent to Fox following his receipt of Iris’s transferred patent files. In that e-mail, Chin stated, “to

9

learn that we were not even notified about the patent that was issued to us three months ago, or
about these two Canadian Office Actions when they were received, that goes further to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

confirmed [sic] what we said a few months ago that Heller is no longer the same firm that we

12

hired back in 1999. It appears that Heller Ehrman has evolved into a firm that has problems not

13

only with greed, but also competence and ethics.” (Chin Depo., Ex. 14.) Although Iris disputes

14

that Chin’s e-mail shows that Chin believed Heller lacked competence, based on its review of

15

the e-mail, the Court cannot say the bankruptcy court’s conclusion is without support.

16

Sixth, the bankruptcy court noted that Chin knew valuable and significant information

17

about Iris’s patents existed on the USPTO website, even if he did not know how to access it

18

(Chin Depo. at 171:2-6.) The bankruptcy court concluded that those facts also showed that “the

19

delay and who had control over that delay land[ed] squarely on Iris’s lap.” (RA 68, Nov. 15

20

Hearing Tr. at 10:14-16.) The Court cannot say that it was “illogical, implausible, or without

21

support in the inferences that may be drawn from the record facts3,” for the bankruptcy court to

22

conclude that Chin exercised significant control and had ample time to review Iris’s files,

23

maintain Iris’s patents, and file a more timely malpractice claim.

24

Seventh, and finally, the bankruptcy court noted that “had Iris attended to its own

25

protection of its own interest and come forth much more quickly, even after the claims bar date

26

and asked to file a late claim, then indeed [the third factor] would weigh less heavily against

27
28
3

Kode, 596 F.3d at 612.
11

files Heller sent to Chin in December 2007 to protect Iris’s rights, Chin focused on and stayed

3

“busy” with Iris’s initial public offering. (Chin Depo. at 118:1-119:20.) Later in 2009, when

4

Jeffrey sent Chin a report on Iris’s intellectual properties in the U.S. and Europe, Chin “did not

5

have the time” to read through the reports and did not do so until 2011. (Chin Depo. at 157:5-

6

158:3.) Furthermore, when Jeffrey notified Chin of the abandoned PCA 11/399,733, Chin

7

instead responded by directing Jeffrey to reactivate his abandoned patent. (Id. at 156:4.)

8

Though the Court understands that companies engaged in business often juggle a plethora of

9

responsibilities ranging from events and activities to regulatory filings and corporate deadlines,

10

the press of business does not justify a finding of excusable neglect. See e.g., Selph v. Council

11
For the Northern District of California

[Iris] and in favor of Heller.”4 (Id. at 10:19-23.) In particular, instead of reviewing the patent

2

United States District Court

1

of City of Los Angeles, 593 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1979), overruled on other grounds by United

12

Artists Corp. v. La Cage Aux Folles, Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1269 (1985). Chin’s busy schedule

13

and attendance to his other priorities cannot be construed as a basis for finding excusable

14

neglect.

15

Under Pioneer and Pincay, courts examine both the reason for Iris’s delay in filing a late

16

claim and whether Iris exerted reasonable control over the delay in filing a late claim–a point

17

that Iris ignores. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395; see also Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858. The

18

bankruptcy court properly analyzed the third factor under both prongs. Therefore, after

19

weighing all of the relevant circumstances relating to the third factor, the Court finds that the

20

bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to find excusable neglect and holding

21

that the reason for the delay, including whether it reasonably rested in the control of Iris,

22

weighed heavily in favor of Heller and heavily against Iris.

23

//

24

//

25
26
27
28

Even if the Court accepted Iris’s allegation that Iris first discovered Heller’s
malpractice when Jeffrey informed Iris, on August 22, 2011, that PCA 11/399,733 was
abandoned, the Court remains unpersuaded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in
holding that Iris still should have filed a more timely malpractice claim. Iris did not contact
Heller’s creditors committee until April 23, 2012, and provides no information that would
explain the reason for the delay between August 2011 and April 2012.
4

12

1
2

CONCLUSION
The Court recognizes Iris must cope with a harsh result; however, the Court finds the

3

bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in applying the factors set forth in Pioneer and

4

Pincay. The Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court’s decision on the motion to allow a late

5

filing of a malpractice claim.

6

The Court shall enter a separate judgment, and the Clerk shall close the file.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: August 12, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13