Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04158/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04158-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR

UNIVERSITY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-04158 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave;

Defendants’ Motion for Leave

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“plaintiff” or “Stanford”)

brought this action against Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., et al. (collectively “defendants” or

“Roche”) alleging infringement of various U.S. Patents. Now before the court is Stanford’s motion

seeking leave to file a motion to reconsider the court’s construction of “PCR” and “about 30 cycles,”

and Roche’s motion seeking leave to file a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling made on April 16,

2007. Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth

below, the court rules as follows.

Stanford’s Motion Seeking Leave

I. Background

Stanford asks this court to reconsider its claim construction order based on three arguments. 

First, Stanford claims that in his January 9, 2008 deposition, Dr. Russell Higuchi testified that:

1) real-time PCR was disclosed in a article published in April 1992, one month before the filing date

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 273 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 5
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

of the patents-in-suit; and 2) cycle number is relevant to quantitation of nucleic acids by real-time

PCR. Second, Stanford claims that Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., Nos. 2007-1145, 2007-1161,

2008 WL 151080 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2008), caused an intervening change in the law. Third and

finally, Stanford claims it was never given an opportunity to argue an alternate construction for

“PCR” and “about 30 cycles” during claim construction.

II. Legal Standard

In order to obtain leave for a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must specifically

show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for

which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or

law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time

of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L. R. 7-9(b).

III. Discussion

This court’s claim construction order excluded real-time PCR from the definition of “PCR”

because, in 1992, a person of ordinary skill in the art did not know of the conceptual framework of

real-time PCR. See Docket No. 212 at 20–21. Stanford now claims that Dr. Higuchi—Roche’s

expert and purported inventor of real-time PCR—has testified to the contrary. Specifically, that

real-time PCR was described in a publication dated April 1992:

Q. I would like to know if Exhibit 807 [Higuchi et al., Simultaneous Amplification

and Detection of Specific DNA Sequences, Bio/Technology, Vol. 10, April 1992]

discloses your invention of real-time PCR.

A. It describes a form of real-time PCR.

Rhyu Decl., Exh. 3 at 84:24–85:1.

Furthermore, Dr. Higuchi submitted a declaration to the patent office purportedly asserting

that he had disclosed real-time PCR in a paper that was orally presented at a conference in San

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 273 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Francisco in October 1991. Id., Exh. 5 at STAN 038048, 038061–62.1

The statement made by Dr. Higuchi and his testimony are new facts that show that real-time

PCR could have been publicly known as early as October 1991. Furthermore, Stanford has been

reasonably diligent in pursing this litigation by noticing Dr. Higuchi’s deposition in the regular

course of fact discovery on November 19, 2007. In light of these new facts and Stanford’s diligence,

Stanford’s motion for leave to reconsider the construction of “PCR” is GRANTED.

Stanford mischaracterizes Dr. Higuchi’s testimony regarding the relationship between the

number of cycles of amplification and real-time PCR. In its claim construction order, the court

stated that the number of cycles is irrelevant in real-time PCR because, unlike end-point PCR, the

results of real-time PCR are not dependant upon a specific pre-determined number of cycles. Dr.

Higuchi said nothing to the contrary.

Stanford also incorrectly argues a change in intervening law. Innogenetics did find that

after-arising technology could be infringing. This court, however, held the same based upon the

identical case that Innogenetics relies upon, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d

870, 878–80 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Finally, Stanford claims it had no opportunity to advocate its position regarding “PCR.” 

This is false. See Docket No. 202 at 1 (Affidavit of Dr. Kramer pertaining “to the relationship

between a statement in the patents in suit and real-time PCR assays, as well as pertinent similarities

and differences between ‘end-point’ PCR and ‘real-time’ PCR.” (internal citation omitted)).

Roche’s Motion Seeking Leave

I. Background

Roche seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this court’s April 16, 2007 order. 

See Docket No. 157. It presents four arguments to this effect: 1) Stanford’s admission that the

Bayh-Dole funding agreements cannot be located; 2) this court’s decision in Cadence Design Sys.,

Inc. v. Bhandari, 2007 WL 3343085 (N. D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2007) (Patel, J); 3) Judge Newman’s dissent

in the Federal Circuit’s order denying mandamus in this action; and 4) the Federal Circuit’s decision

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 273 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

in DDB Technologies, L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., No. 2007-1211, 2008 WL 375202

(Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2008).

II. Legal Standard

See the Legal Standard section, supra, under “Stanford’s Motion Seeking Leave.”

III. Discussion

The court discusses each of the four bases stated above in turn. First, this court has already

considered Stanford’s inability to produce the actual agreements with the government. The court

was aware of this issue when it issued its April 16, 2007 order. Second, Cadence is inapplicable

here as it had no relation to government funding or the Bayh-Dole Act and considered purely private

assignment agreements. Third, although Judge Newman’s dissent may have some limited

precedential value as Roche claims, the majority decision denying mandamus certainly has greater

precedential value. Finally, DDB is inapplicable here as it had no relation to government funding or

the Bayh-Dole Act and considered purely private assignment agreements.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Stanford’s motion seeking leave to reconsider is GRANTED only

with respect to the construction of “PCR” and DENIED otherwise, and Roche’s motion seeking

leave to reconsider is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008 _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 273 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. In light of this court’s decision, absent a claim of privilege, Roche is ordered to produce the

actual declaration and the paper which Dr. Higuchi presented at the San Francisco meeting.

ENDNOTES

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP Document 273 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 5