Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; October 30, 2017; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
Gerald N. Pellegrini, a self-taught theoretical physicist, claims to have developed a method for extracting limitless energy from the environment, based on the concept of 'unequal coupling coefficients.' These coefficients suggest that certain materials can convert energy in a non-reciprocal manner, potentially allowing for perpetual motion. This theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Pellegrini collaborated with Nian X. Sun, a former associate professor at Northeastern University, to conduct experiments that aimed to validate his claims. Their collaboration led to the publication of an academic article, which Pellegrini found unsatisfactory both in content and process. Consequently, he filed a six-count amended complaint against Sun and Northeastern University. In subsequent cross motions for summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, prompting Pellegrini to appeal on three counts: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and violation of G. L. c. 93A. Pellegrini's academic background includes a college degree and incomplete graduate studies, with teaching experience but no steady employment. He has faced challenges in securing funding for his energy concepts, which are met with skepticism due to their fundamental conflicts with established physics. Although he received some funding for experiments at the University of Maryland in 2009, the funding source went out of business. Eventually, Pellegrini secured $60,000 from investor Barry Herring for testing at Sun's lab, formalized through a minimal memorandum of understanding that did not address publication rights. Testing conducted by a postdoctoral researcher revealed minor discrepancies in coupling coefficients that were ultimately deemed inconclusive.
Initial testing of 'metglas' showed a twenty percent discrepancy in coupling coefficients, but further evaluations deemed it unviable for Pellegrini's energy-harvesting concept. In contrast, testing of galfenol, an iron-gallium alloy, revealed a seventy-nine percent discrepancy, leading Pellegrini to consider it a feasible option, while Sun expressed skepticism, attributing the discrepancies to potential energy losses rather than a violation of thermodynamic principles.
In late 2010, Pellegrini, Sun, and a postdoc began drafting an article on their findings, focusing on the iron-gallium composite, which indicated no discrepancies. Disagreements arose regarding the mention of metglas discrepancies; Pellegrini favored inclusion, whereas Sun preferred minimal reference. Ultimately, they agreed to acknowledge the discrepancy without assigning a cause, noting that a new characterization method was in development.
Pellegrini approved a version of the article in July 2011, unaware that Sun and the postdoc made substantial changes without his input. After initial rejections from two journals, they sought a prominent coauthor, who also imposed revisions. The article was subsequently condensed into a short format and accepted by *Applied Physics Letters* in January 2012.
When Sun emailed Pellegrini the accepted version, he implied it was the same as the one Pellegrini approved, failing to emphasize the modifications. Consequently, Pellegrini did not review the email closely, and the article, published on March 9, 2012, primarily discussed the iron-gallium tests, downplaying metglas findings while suggesting a broader applicability of the results regarding coupling coefficients.
Pellegrini did not review the article prior to its publication and contends that it inaccurately presented metglas data and undermined his theories regarding coupling coefficients. Despite his concerns and a request for Sun to seek a recall of the article, Sun declined. Pellegrini's frustration with the publication process is acknowledged, particularly since Sun had agreed to specific language regarding the metglas data but failed to communicate changes before submission. However, the primary legal question revolves around Pellegrini's ability to substantiate damages in his amended complaint. The defendants are entitled to summary judgment if they demonstrate that Pellegrini cannot reasonably prove an essential element of his case. The judge concluded that Pellegrini’s claims were largely speculative. By the time the article was published, Pellegrini had already dismissed metglas as commercially viable and was focused on galfenol, rendering the article's content unlikely to materially affect him. Although Pellegrini alleged that the article harmed his funding prospects and diminished the value of his intellectual property, he failed to provide evidence to support these claims. The record indicates that funding opportunities had not changed post-publication and that any decrease in intellectual property value was based solely on Herring's uncorroborated opinion. Consequently, Pellegrini did not present sufficient evidence to warrant a finding in his favor, leading to the affirmation of summary judgment for the defendants.
Damages must be substantiated beyond mere speculation, applicable even during the summary judgment stage. The court reviews evidence de novo, favoring the nonmoving party and drawing reasonable inferences in their favor. The investor assigned rights under a memorandum to Pellegrini, which was extended twice without written confirmation, and the investor contributed an additional $120,000 for a study. An email from Sun to Pellegrini included substantive comments from a coauthor and a journal reviewer regarding the article's focus on the equivalence of coupling coefficients, not discrepancies. The court acknowledges its lack of expertise in the technical field involved. A 'statement of ethics' from the journal requires authors to ensure all coauthors agree to the final submission. Pellegrini is assumed to have stated causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and violation of G. L. c. 93A, but these issues are not reached in this order. Pellegrini did not argue for a delay in summary judgment to complete damages discovery, which is deemed waived. Citing Menici v. Orton Crane Shovel Co., Pellegrini argued that Herring could testify to the patents' value, referencing case law allowing property owners to testify on value. However, the court found Herring's assertion that the patents were "worth a lot less" lacked adequate foundation, failing to survive summary judgment.
