Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45336517/Illumina-v-Affymetrix-Order-2010-12-14
Timestamp: 2015-05-27 02:10:44
Document Index: 410697174

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 256', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 256', '§ 256', '§ 102']

P. 1Illumina v. Affymetrix (Order, 2010-12-14)Illumina v. Affymetrix (Order, 2010-12-14)Ratings: (0)|Views: 66|Likes: 0Published by Jorge M TorresOrder of the District Court for the District of Wisconsin dismissing, among other things, patent infringement claims filed by Illumina against Affymatrix. Order of the District Court for the District of Wisconsin dismissing, among other things, patent infringement claims filed by Illumina against Affymatrix. More info:Categories:Types, Government & PoliticsPublished by: Jorge M Torres on Dec 15, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/45336517/Illumina-v-Affymetrix-Order-2010-12-1412/15/2010pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ILLUMINA, INC.,OPINION and ORDER Plaintiff,09-cv-277-bbc09-cv-665-bbc v. AFFYMETRIX, INC.,Defendant.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The primary issue raised in plaintiff Illumina, Inc.’s complaints in these consolidatedcases is whether defendant Affymetrix, Inc. is infringing two related patents, U.S. PatentNos. 7,510,841 and 7,612,020. The patents share the same specification and disclose “anapparatus and method for the detection of target analytes using composite arrays of bioactiveagents.” Dft.’s PFOF ¶ 2, dkt. #127; Plt.’s Resp. to Dft.’s PFOF ¶ 2, dkt. #164. Defendant
has filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground of noninfringement, dkt. #125;plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment on various invalidity counterclaimsand defenses raised by defendant. Dkt. #133.The citations to the record correspond to case no. 09-cv-277-bbc.
Case: 3:09-cv-00277-bbc Document #: 221 Filed: 12/14/10 Page 1 of 13
These motions have been ready for decision since October, but I have not been ableto resolve them thus far because of a challenge defendant is making to the inventorship of the two patents, raising questions about the interplay of issues such as prudential standing,patent correction under 35 U.S.C. § 256 and invalidty under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). However,for the reasons stated below, I conclude that the question of inventorship need not beresolved in these cases and that there are no further barriers to resolving the merits. Becausethe undisputed facts show that the accused products do not include a “substrate,” as requiredby each of the asserted claims, I will grant summary judgment to defendant. This conclusionmakes it unnecessary to decide defendant’s alternative argument on noninfringement, whichis that the accused products do not have “discrete sites.”OPINIONDefendant first raised issues of inventorship in its motion to dismiss for “lack of jurisdiction.” Dkt. #122. In that motion, defendant argued that plaintiff lacked standingto sue under the ‘841 and ‘020 patents because it failed to join as a plaintiff Gregory Kirk, who defendant contends is an inventor and therefore an owner of the two patents.Defendant relied on the rule that a co-owner of a patent does not have standing to sue unlessit joins the other co-owners. Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc., 475 F.3d 1256,1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In the alternative, defendant stated that the patents are invalid
Case: 3:09-cv-00277-bbc Document #: 221 Filed: 12/14/10 Page 2 of 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), which states that a person is not entitled to a patent if “he did nothimself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.” However, defendant did notdevelop a separate argument under § 102(f), but treated the issue as identical to its standingargument.In an order dated October 28, 2010, dkt. #192, I noted that a potential problem withdefendant’s standing argument is that Kirk is not named as an inventor on the ‘841 and ‘020patents. Defendant ignored this fact, even though all the appellate cases it cited for itsstanding argument involved a failure to join a named inventor. Accordingly, I asked theparties to submit supplemental briefing on the questions whether (1) the patent needed tobe corrected to add Kirk as an inventor before his absence from the lawsuit could be aground for challenging plaintiff’s standing to sue; and (2) whether the patent should becorrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256 in the context of this case. After reviewing the parties’ supplemental briefs, I concluded that “the named ownersand their assignees have standing to sue until the patent is corrected to reflect any omittedinventors.” Dkt. #208, at 6. However, I also concluded that it made sense to allow defendant to seek a correction in the context of this case because district courts haveauthority under § 256 to order correction of a patent “on notice and hearing of all partiesconcerned” and because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated that a courtshould not invalidate a patent under § 102(f) unless correction is not a viable option. Pannu
Case: 3:09-cv-00277-bbc Document #: 221 Filed: 12/14/10 Page 3 of 13
More From This UserKFP Recruiting Deck (Aug 2013)Jorge M TorresAgendaJorge M TorresIP & VC: A Framework for Funding Disruption of the Intellectual Property MarketsJorge M Torres#AppSung Final Jury InstructionsJorge M TorresMITEF NYC Presentation - February 15, 2012Jorge M TorresMyriad Genetics gene patent caseJorge M Torresi4i vs. MicrosoftJorge M Torres20110216_Deal_Genzyme_en_tcm28-30538Jorge M TorresCases Commenced, by Basis of Jurisdiction and Nature of SuitJorge M TorresAssociation for Molecular Pathology vs. USPTOJorge M Torres