Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

APPLERA CORPORATION-APPLIED

BIOSYSTEMS GROUP, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ILLUMINA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

SOLEXA INC., a Delaware corporation,

and STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ, an

individual

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02845 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND TO

ADVANCE TRIAL

Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate and to advance trial is DENIED. Contrary to plaintiff, this

is not a “standing” situation. DDB Technologies does not apply. Rather, Applied is the one

who sued, seeking, under various state-law theories, to establish ownership of the patents. 

These theories include breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks damage. This is a classic jury trial

situation, including the statute of limitations defense.

Things are not changed because defendants later threatened to sue for and did

counterclaim for patent infringement. Defendants still retain their right to a jury trial on the

issues put in play by the complaint. This is so even if defendants would have no right to a jury

trial on the “standing” issue in the counterclaims, which is not so clear anyway (but need not be

decided).

At the trial already set for September 29 by the case management order, the jury shall be

told that the trial will be in two phases. The first phase will be all issues on the complaint (and

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 181 Filed 04/04/08 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

defenses). The jury will then render a verdict. Possibly, this will also resolve any standing

issues as to the counterclaim as well. We then will proceed promptly with the same jury to the

counterclaims (and defenses). Unless and until necessary, the jury will not be told how the

verdict in phase one will impact phase two. The jury will then render a verdict on the

counterclaim issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 181 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2