6 unchanged sentences
In July 2020, we filed a complaint against Berkeley Lights, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Berkeley Lights infringed and continues to infringe, directly and indirectly, the following patents exclusively licensed by the Company, including U.S.
−Removed: 10,421,936 and
−Removed: 10,704,018, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Berkeley Lights’ Beacon Optofluidic System.
+Added: 10,421,936 and 10,704,018, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Berkeley Lights’ Beacon Optofluidic System.
In August 2020, we filed an additional related complaint against Berkeley Lights in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Berkeley Lights infringed and continues to infringe, directly and indirectly, U.S.
6 unchanged sentences
In February 2021, these lawsuits were consolidated and assigned to the Honorable Judge Lucy Koh.
−Removed: In February 2021, Berk e ley Lights filed a motion seeking leave to amend its counterclaims to add the allegations of unfair competition (as plead in the case described below) against AbCellera only.
+Added: In February 2021, Berkeley Lights filed a motion seeking leave to amend its counterclaims to add the allegations of unfair competition (as plead in the case described below) against AbCellera only.
In July 2021, the Court allowed Berkeley to amend its counterclaims to add the unfair competition claims subject to our right to seek dismissal with prejudice should the counterclaims not overcome objections previously presented by us to the court.
8 unchanged sentences
In August 2021, the court stayed the patent litigation against Berkeley Lights in view of the Petitions for inter partes Review filed by Berkeley Lights.
−Removed: A determination on all of the Petitions for Inter- Partes Review filed by Berkeley Lights is expected no later than February 2022.
+Added: In January 2022, the PTAB denied one petition and instituted one petition.
+Added: In February 2022, the PTAB denied the final petition.
+Added: Trial on the instituted petition occurred in November 2022.
+Added: In January 2023, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision with respect to our U.S.
+Added: 10,087,408 rejecting all of Berkeley Lights’ grounds of unpatentability and determining that none of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
+Added: Because the three aforementioned inter partes review matters have been resolved, we intend to seek relief from the Court to lift the pending stay and resume our patent infringement action against Berkeley Lights.
Unfair Competition and Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
6 unchanged sentences
In July 2021, Berkeley voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.
−Removed: Post-Grant Review of a Berkeley Lights Patent
−Removed: In February 2020, we filed a petition seeking post-grant review of Berkeley Lights’ U.S.
−Removed: 10,646,871 with the United States Patent and Trademark Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or the PTAB.
−Removed: We are seeking to invalidate Berkeley Lights’ patent on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C.
−Removed: Sections 102 and 112.
−Removed: In August 2021, the PTAB declined to institute our Petition.
+Added: Civil Lawsuit
+Added: The Company recently became aware of a civil lawsuit filed by the Estate of John Schrader and another corporate entity naming as co-defendants the Company, some of its affiliates and Dr.
+Added: Carl Hansen, the Company's CEO.
+Added: The lawsuit was filed October 14, 2022, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver).
+Added: The complaint alleges breach of an implied partnership or joint venture between Dr.
+Added: John Schrader and Dr.
+Added: Hansen and further alleges patent infringement of an issued Canadian patent (No.
+Added: The complaint seeks financial damages as well as other declarations.
+Added: The Company believes that the claim is meritless and frivolous in all respects and intends to defend itself appropriately.
Mine Safety Disclosures.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.