Editor's Note: The following letter has not been edited to conform with Polytechnic style guidelines and does not necessarily represent the views of The Poly or its members. Dr. Bae's previous letter to the editor can be found here.

With the support of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), a funding and research arm of the US Department of Energy, I developed a novel class of ion-conducting materials that could play a key role in the clean energy sector, such as green hydrogen production. At ARPA-E’s suggestion, and under RPI’s green light, I founded a startup, Orion, in 2018, to commercialize the technology that I developed in RPI’s laboratory.

Despite Orion’s initial commercialization success and RPI’s stated policies of supporting it’s professors commercialization efforts, Bruce Hunter, head of RPI-IPO (Office of Intellectual Property Optimization), engaged in a deliberate course of action to delay the negotiation beyond the contractual deadline and secretly pursue licensing discussions with well financed third parties. The discovery evidence is the smoking gun that illustrates a deliberate effort to placate Orion until time ran out on its initial license, while RPI secretly pursued an agreement with third-party entities. I have continued to pursue this case at great financial and personal cost because I have been bolstered by RPI’s own discovery documents submitted to the court, which clearly refute their own claims. By sharing my own experiences, I also hope to help other inventors that wish to license and commercialize their own patents. Since this filing is now part of the public record, I believe it is important that the university’s faculty and senior leadership have direct access to the full and accurate information. Unlike previous filings, we cited relevant evidence in our argument and affirmation and included the evidence in appendix. Because these issues relate directly to the university’s research integrity, contractual obligations, and institutional responsibilities, I felt it was necessary to ensure that you could review the primary source document yourself.

The listed facts are highly revealing. I suggest that you review them (including smoking gun evidence in Appendix 22) to assess where the lawsuit stands. My intention in sharing this is simply to provide transparency and to ensure that the university’s leadership has a complete understanding of the situation as it moves forward.

Reply Affirmation (a summary of incidents in chronological order)

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=tUNIdiaby_PLUS_y1sbyZrMarCQ==

Memorandum of Law (legal argument)

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=xt045Cfn8aGiJcoeoB/zaQ==

Appendices (evidence)

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Wfcpw_PLUS_hBjfRR_PLUS_8eDDt/SRQ==

RPI has now filed another motion in an attempt to "color" my Affidavit as submitted in bad faith despite its clear references to documented evidence. It is long overdue for RPI's administration to acknowledge their mistakes and take responsibility for the harm I suffered, instead of denying the obvious and dragging this situation forward indefinitely.

Chulsung Bae, Ph.D. Email: baec@rpi.edu

Ford Foundation Professor

Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute