Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05639/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05639-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLUIDIGM CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IONPATH, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C 19-05639 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND

INTRODUCTION

A patent owner seeks leave to amend its complaint. Because the new allegations of 

intentional interference with contractual relations and post-suit willful patent infringement 

plausibly traverse defendant’s opposition, the motion, to the extent below, is GRANTED. 

STATEMENT

A prior order dismissed several claims and detailed the facts of this case (Dkt. No. 46). 

The proposed second amended complaint alleges that Fluidigm Corporation and Fluidigm 

Canada Inc. (“patent owner”) and IONpath, Inc. (“defendant”) compete in the market for mass 

cytometry methods and systems which analyze the structures and biomarkers of cells. 

Relevant here, the parties’ methods involve labelling a tissue sample with antibody-metal tags, 

which the parties call “reagents.” These reagents bind to specific cell targets. Following 

several steps, not pertinent here, a mass spectrometer identifies the reagents, and by 

association, the targets present in a sample (Prop. Amend. Compl. at ¶¶ 4–5, 20, 23). 

Case 3:19-cv-05639-WHA Document 58 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The proposed complaint further alleges that defendant first sold its mass cytometry 

system, the MIBIscope, in late 2017, but did not market the necessary reagents until July 2019. 

Meanwhile, patent owner was the only commercial supplier of those reagents. And, patent 

owner’s sales terms prohibited the use of its reagents with any other manufacturer’s mass 

cytometry systems. Yet, defendant sold MIBIscopes to several entities who also purchased 

patent owner’s reagents. So, our patent owner concludes, defendant encouraged use of its 

MIBIscopes with patent owner’s reagents, i.e. intentional interference with the patent owner’s 

contractual relations (id. at ¶¶ 78–82). 

Patent owner also asserts direct and indirect infringement of three patents covering the 

field of mass cytometry: U.S. Patent No. 10,180,386 (“ ’386 patent”); No. 10,072,104 (“ ’104 

patent”); and No. 10,436,698 (“ ’698 patent”). The original September 6 complaint asserted 

the ’386 and ’104 patents and the October 11 first amended complaint added the ’698 patent. 

Yet, the proposed complaint alleges, defendant continued to market its mass cytometry systems

despite knowledge of its infringement (id. at ¶¶ 9, 39, 47, 57). 

A January 24 order dismissed patent owner’s claims for intentional interference with 

contractual relations, indirect infringement of the asserted patents, and enhanced damages. 

Patent owner now moves for leave to amend its complaint, reasserting largely the same claims. 

In light of the public health concern due to COVID-19, this motion is appropriate for 

disposition on the papers. 

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) dictates that leave to amend shall be freely given 

“when justice so requires.” Absent (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies; (4) undue prejudice; or (5) futility, leave should be granted. Foman v. Davis, 371 

U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Defendant challenges only the futility of patent owner’s amendment, 

arguing the claims for relief remain deficient. 

As in a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a facially 

plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That means the factual 

allegations permit a reasonable inference, not just speculation, that defendants are liable for the 

Case 3:19-cv-05639-WHA Document 58 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

misconduct alleged. All factual allegations rate as true, but legal conclusions merely couched 

as fact may be disregarded. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Defendant 

challenges only two aspects of the proposed second amended complaint. 

1. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS.

To state a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations, a complaint must 

allege, among others, an “actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship.” See 

PG&E v. Bear Stearns & Co., 791 P.2d 587, 590 (Cal. 1990). Defendant contends the 

complaints’ allegations require an implausible inference of actual breach. This order disagrees. 

The proposed complaint plausibly alleges that patent owner’s customers entered into and 

breached product sales terms. Both patent owner and defendant marketed mass cytometry 

systems which required antibody-metal tag reagents. Defendant first sold its MIBIscope in late 

2017, but did not market its own reagents until July 2019. In the interim, only patent owner 

commercially marketed the necessary reagents. Yet, to purchase patent owners’ reagents, 

customers agreed to not “use any Fluidigm consumables or reagents with any non-Fluidigm 

instrument, device or system” (id. at ¶¶ 18, 76, 19, 23, 79–82). 

Eight entities allegedly purchased both MIBIscopes and patent owner’s reagents during 

the relevant time period: Stanford University; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; University of 

Colorado, Denver; University of Minnesota; Mount Sinai Health System; University of Texas 

MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of California, San Francisco; and Bluebird Bio. 

Rather than leaving their MIBIscopes unused until July 2019, these entities used patent 

owner’s reagents with them, thus breaching the sales terms (id. at ¶¶ 79, 89, 132–133). 

This conclusion requires an inference, but not an implausible one: that MIBIscope 

customers used the most readily available reagents with their expensive systems. Defendant’s 

counterarguments fail to convince. 

First, patent owner need not foreclose all other reagent sources. Defendant jumps on a 

point, which the proposed complaint admits, that some entities, like the University of 

Colorado, manufactured their own reagents and may also have supplied them to other entities 

(id. at ¶ 117). The pleading standard requires plausibility, not certainty. MIBIscope customers 

Case 3:19-cv-05639-WHA Document 58 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

may have operated their systems with reagents obtained only from small-batch manufacturers. 

But special cases do not undermine the plausibility of patent owner’s theory of liability, that 

MIBIscope customers operated their systems with reagents obtained from the most readily 

available commercial source, patent owner. 

Second, defendant challenges the allegation that it did not supply reagents before July 

2019. Such a challenge exceeds the scope of the proposed complaint. See Khoja v. Orexigen 

Therapeutics, 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). Defendant has notice of the plausible theory 

of liability and may move for leave to file an early motion for partial summary judgment. 

2. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT.

The January 24 order which dismissed patent owner’s pre-suit claims for enhanced 

damages stated: 

(1) [E]nhanced damages are generally reserved for egregious 

cases of culpable behavior;

* * *

(2) [A] patent infringement plaintiff does not have to prove 

willfulness at the pleading stage, although they should allege 

more than a one-sentence prayer for willfulness relief; [and]

* * *

(3) [C]ulpability is generally measured against the knowledge of 

the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.

(Dkt. No. 46 at 8–9). Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc., No. C 19-05639 WHA, 2020 WL 

408988 at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2020) (quotations and citations omitted). Defendants 

contend the new allegations of egregious conduct remain deficient. This order again disagrees. 

The proposed complaint adequately pleads post-suit willful infringement. Taking the 

allegations as true, service of the original complaint on September 23 notified defendant that it 

infringed the ’386 and ’104 patents and the October 11 first amended complaint communicated 

the same regarding the ’698 patent (Prop. Amend. Compl. at ¶¶ 39, 47, 57). Since then, 

defendant officially launched its infringing MIBIscope on November 5, sold four more 

systems, proclaimed its MIBIscopes in several articles, and demonstrated them at a November 

6 conference (id. at ¶¶ 106–07, 111–123). At this stage, the allegations permit the plausible 

conclusion that defendant’s post-suit conduct was willful. 

Case 3:19-cv-05639-WHA Document 58 Filed 03/24/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant contends the new allegations merely repeat more of the same conduct 

identified in the prior complaints — more articles, customer instructions, and commercial 

releases (Dkt. No. 54 at 3–4). But as defendant notes in the next paragraph of its brief, the 

issue here is timing, not conduct. The January 24 order dismissed allegations of pre-suit 

willfulness because the prior complaints failed to plausibly allege defendant’s pre-suit 

knowledge of infringement. Now with knowledge of (alleged) infringement, defendant’s 

marketing efforts become willful. 

But, as defendants note, the timing of the willfulness allegations matters. This order 

emphasizes that the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint support only

willfulness claims after September 23 for the ’386 and ’104 patents and after October 11 for 

the ’698 patent.

CONCLUSION

Leave to amend is GRANTED. This case proceeds with three patents, each with claims 

for direct and indirect infringement and for post-suit willfulness, and a claim for intentional 

interference with contractual relations. 

But, as above, any claims for pre-complaint willfulness are not sufficiently alleged. And 

the Court is unsure why our patent owner again included several theories of liability in its 

proposed second amended complaint that were already dismissed. For example, the January 

24 order made clear that mere knowledge of a prior patent conveys no knowledge whatsoever 

of later patents in the same family. Yet this theory remains in the proposed complaint (Prop. 

Amend. Compl. at ¶¶ 37–38, 55–56). 

Before filing, patent owner shall please ensure its second amended complaint both: (1) 

carefully tailors its prayers for willfulness to post-suit behavior; and (2) omit theories explicitly 

dismissed in this or the January 24 order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2020. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-05639-WHA Document 58 Filed 03/24/20 Page 5 of 5