Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02788/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02788-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ILLUMINA, INC, and ILLUMINA CAMBRIDGE

LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

QIAGEN N.V., QIAGEN GmbH, QIAGEN

GAITHERSBURG, INC., QIAGEN SCIENCES,

LLC, QIAGEN INC. (USA), QIAGEN

REDWOOD CITY, INC., AND INTELLIGENT

BIO-SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-02788 WHA

PRECLUSION ORDER

FOLLOWING REFUSAL

TO PRODUCE

EVIDENCE AND

PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court has reviewed the letter from Attorney John Cooper, noting that defendants

agree to the proposal made at the hearing on January 27 (Dkt. No. 195). Accordingly, the Court

orders as follows:

Defendants are precluded from referring to or relying on the sequencing chemistry used

in their new product for any purpose at summary judgment or at trial (or any other purpose). In

light of defendants’ consent to this preclusion, their request for a protective order regarding

discovery relating to the new chemistry (excluding the protecting group) is GRANTED.

To be clear, this order entirely precludes any discussion of the new chemistry by

defendants; it does not allow defendants to raise the issue with the condition that the jury will

be instructed about their stonewalling. (That option was mentioned at the hearing but never

offered to defendants and was superseded by the total preclusion alternative.)

Case 3:16-cv-02788-WHA Document 196 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

This order does not address whether defendants may rely on the new chemistry as

evidence of a design around if we reach the question of a permanent injunction. It also does not

address other sequencing chemistries that may have been considered before defendants

launched the accused products.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02788-WHA Document 196 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 2