5 unchanged sentences
Patent Infringement Litigation
−Removed: 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 10,704,018, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Berkeley Lights’ Beacon Optofluidic System.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: In July 2020, we filed a complaint against Bruker Cellular Analysis (on October 3, 2023, PhenomeX, the successor to Berkeley Lights was acquired by Bruker Cellular Analysis), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Bruker Cellular Analysis infringed and continues to infringe, directly and indirectly, the following patents exclusively licensed by the Company, including U.S.
+Added: 10,421,936 and 10,704,018, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Bruker Cellular Analysis’ Beacon Optofluidic System.
+Added: In August 2020, we filed an additional related complaint against Bruker Cellular Analysis in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Bruker Cellular Analysis infringed and continues to infringe, directly and indirectly, U.S.
10,746,737 and 10,753,933.
−Removed: In September 2020, we filed another 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.
+Added: In September 2020, we filed another complaint against Bruker Cellular Analysis in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Bruker Cellular Analysis infringed and continues to infringe, directly and indirectly, U.S.
10,775,377 and 10,775,378.
3 unchanged sentences
In February 2021, these lawsuits were consolidated and assigned to the Honorable Judge Lucy Koh.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: In February 2021, Bruker Cellular Analysis 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 July 2021, the Court allowed Bruker Cellular Analysis 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.
The Company is continuing to oppose the unfounded counterclaim and we intend to seek dismissal with prejudice.
In March 2021, the court set this matter down for a jury trial with a December 12, 2022 start date.
−Removed: In July 2021, Berkeley Lights filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
+Added: In July 2021, Bruker Cellular Analysis filed a Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
10,087,408 that we exclusively license from the University of British Columbia.
−Removed: In July 2021, Berkeley Lights filed a second Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
+Added: In July 2021, Bruker Cellular Analysis filed a second Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
10,421,936 that we exclusively license from the University of British Columbia.
−Removed: In August 2021, Berkeley Lights filed a third Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
+Added: In August 2021, Bruker Cellular Analysis filed a third Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
10,738,270 that we exclusively license from the University of British Columbia.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: In August 2021, the court stayed the patent litigation against Bruker Cellular Analysis in view of the Petitions for inter partes Review filed by Bruker Cellular Analysis.
In January 2022, the PTAB denied one petition and instituted one petition.
2 unchanged sentences
In January 2023, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision with respect to our U.S.
−Removed: 10,087,408 rejecting all of Berkeley Lights’ grounds of unpatentability and determining that none of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 10,087,408 rejecting all of Bruker Cellular Analysis’ 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 Bruker
+Added: Cellular Analysis.
+Added: On August 4, 2023, the District Court lifted the stay in the pending matter against Bruker Cellular Analysis.
+Added: The case has since resumed.
+Added: No trial date has been set.
+Added: The Company maintains its belief in the merits of this infringement matter and will continue to enforce its intellectual property portfolio worldwide.
+Added: On July 26, 2023, Bruker Cellular Analysis filed a Notice of Appeal in IPR2021-1249 matter.
+Added: The Company believes the appeal is meritless and that the decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board will be upheld.
Unfair Competition and Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
−Removed: In August 2020, Berkeley Lights filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary Lineage Inc.
+Added: In August 2020, Bruker Cellular Analysis filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary Lineage Inc.
The complaint includes two counts of unfair competition and one count of non-infringement of a U.S.
10,058,839 (the “’839 patent”).
−Removed: Berkeley Lights is seeking, among other things, damages and a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’839 patent.
+Added: Bruker Cellular Analysis is seeking, among other things, damages and a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’839 patent.
We filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) 1, 2, and 6.
−Removed: In January 2021, the Court determined that there was no jurisdiction over AbCellera or Lineage and dismissed the unfair competition claims but ordered jurisdictional discovery on a limited basis with respect to AbCellera only regarding Berkeley Lights’ request for declaratory judgment on the ‘839 patent.
−Removed: In July 2021, Berkeley voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.
+Added: In January 2021, the Court determined that there was no jurisdiction over AbCellera or Lineage and dismissed the unfair competition claims but ordered jurisdictional discovery on a limited basis with respect to AbCellera only regarding Bruker Cellular Analysis’ request for declaratory judgment on the ‘839 patent.
+Added: In July 2021, Bruker Cellular Analysis voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.
Civil Lawsuit
−Removed: 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: On October 14, 2022, the Estate of John Schrader and ImmVivos Pharmaceuticals Inc.
+Added: filed a lawsuit naming as co-defendants the Company, some of its affiliates and Dr.
Carl Hansen, the Company's CEO.
−Removed: The lawsuit was filed October 14, 2022, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver).
+Added: The lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver).
The complaint alleges breach of an implied partnership or joint venture between Dr.
2 unchanged sentences
The complaint seeks financial damages as well as other declarations.
−Removed: The Company believes that the claim is meritless and frivolous in all respects and intends to defend itself appropriately.
+Added: The Company recently filed a Notice of Application seeking to dismiss certain Company affiliates from the matter.
+Added: No hearing date has been set.
+Added: All co-defendants have been served.
+Added: The Company is proceeding to seek dismissal of certain Company affiliates for lack of jurisdiction.
+Added: No other activity is occurring with respect to this matter.
+Added: The Company believes that Plaintiffs’ 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.