The Regents of the University of California et al v. Dakocytomation California Inc.

Filing 373

STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding INFRINGMENT; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 4/30/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ABBOTT MOLECULAR INC., and ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., Plaintiffs, v. DAKO NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DAKO DENMARK A/S, Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS Case No. C-05-03955 MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INFRINGEMENT Judge: Marilyn Hall Patel

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

To facilitate the narrowing of issues for the Court and jury at trial, plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California, Abbott Molecular Inc., and Abbot Laboratories Inc. and defendants Dako North America, Inc. and Dako Denmark A/S ("Dako") stipulate, for the purposes of this litigation only, as follows: 1) Dako does not contest that its HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH

Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products have been and continue to be used in the United States to practice all limitations of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 5,447,841 ("the '841 patent") except the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation.
STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

2)

Dako does not contest that the BCR FISH DNA Probe product has been and

continues to be used in the United States to practice all limitations of claims 7 and 8 of the '841 patent except the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation. 3) Accordingly, the only issue in dispute on Plaintiffs' claim of infringement of the

'841 patent is whether the PNA blocking probes in Dako's HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products, or the PNA blocking probes and total human DNA in Dako's EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. 4) The jury shall be instructed that if it finds that Dako's PNA blocking probes alone

or in combination with total human DNA are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation, then it should find infringement of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. The jury shall also be instructed on the doctrine of equivalents. However, the parties agree that the jury does not need to be instructed on direct infringement, literal infringement, and indirect infringement (see N.D. Cal. Model Patent Jury Instructions Nos. 3.2, 3.3, 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10). 5) follows: a. Has the University and Abbott proven that it is more likely than not that Dako's PNA blocking probes are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of the '841 patent, and that Dako therefore infringes those claims? b. Has the University and Abbott proven that it is more likely than not that Dako's PNA blocking probes in combination with total human DNA probes are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of the '841 patent, and that Dako therefore infringes those claims? 6) If the jury finds in favor of the UC and Abbott on the first interrogatory, and this The only interrogatories on infringement in the jury verdict form shall be as

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

verdict survives post-trial motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50., then the court shall enter judgment as follows:
STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT 2 CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

a. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products directly infringes claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the '841 patent; b. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the BCR FISH DNA Probe product directly infringes claims 7 and 8 of the '841 patent. c. Dako is liable for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and

d. Dako is liable for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 7) If the jury finds against the UC and Abbott on the first interrogatory, but finds in

favor of the UC and Abbott on the second interrogatory, and this verdict survives post-trial motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, then the Court shall enter judgment as follows: a. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the HER2 FISH pharmDX kit and TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '841 patent; b. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products directly infringes claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, of the '841 patent; c. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the BCR FISH DNA Probe product directly infringes claims 7 and 8 of the '841 patent; d. Dako is liable for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and e. Dako is liable for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 8) If the jury finds against the UC and Abbott on both interrogatories, and this

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9)

verdict survives post-trial motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, then the Court shall enter judgment as follows: a. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix, and BCR FISH DNA Probe do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '841 patent. Consistent with the stipulation regarding representative products, the Court shall
3 CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

also enter similar judgments with respect to Dako's other accused products. Dated: April 24, 2009 FENWICK & WEST LLP By: /s/ Carolyn Chang Carolyn Chang

LYNN H. PASAHOW (CSB No. 054283) ([e-mail]) MICHAEL J. SHUSTER (CSB No. 191611) ([e-mail]) HEATHER N. MEWES (CSB No. 203690) ([e-mail]) CAROLYN CHANG (CSB No. 217933) ([e-mail]) C. J. ALICE CHUANG (CSB No. 228556) ([e-mail]) FENWICK & WEST LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.938.5200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ABBOTT MOLECULAR INC., and ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC. Dated: April 24, 2009 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. /s/ Tina E. Hulse Tina E. Hulse TINA E. HULSE (CSB #232936) ([e-mail]) WESLEY B. DERRICK (CSB #244944) ([e-mail]) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABLOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Stanford Research Park 33 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203 Attorneys for Defendants DAKO NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DAKO DENMARK A/S By:

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT 4

CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

ORDER Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby orders as follows: 1) Dako will not contest that its HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products have been and continue to be used in the United States to practice all limitations of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 5,447,841 ("the '841 patent") except the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation. 2) Dako will not contest that the BCR FISH DNA Probe product has been and continues to be used in the United States to practice all limitations of claims 7 and 8 of the '841 patent except the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation. 3) Accordingly, the only issue in dispute on Plaintiffs' claim of infringement of the '841 patent is whether the PNA blocking probes in Dako's HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products, or the PNA blocking probes and total human DNA in Dako's EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. 4) The jury shall be instructed that if it finds that Dako's PNA blocking probes alone or in combination with total human DNA are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation, then it should find infringement of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. The jury shall also be instructed on the doctrine of equivalents. The jury does not need to be instructed on direct infringement, literal infringement, and indirect infringement (see N.D. Cal. Model Patent Jury Instructions Nos. 3.2, 3.3, 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10). 5) The only interrogatories on infringement in the jury verdict form shall be as follows: a. Has the University and Abbott proven that it is more likely than not that Dako's PNA blocking probes are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of the '841 patent, and that Dako therefore infringes those claims?
STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT 5 CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

b. Has the University and Abbott proven that it is more likely than not that Dako's PNA blocking probes in combination with total human DNA probes are equivalent to the "blocking nucleic acid" limitation of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of the '841 patent, and that Dako therefore infringes those claims? 6) If the jury finds in favor of the UC and Abbott on the first interrogatory, and this verdict survives post-trial motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50., then the court shall enter judgment as follows: a. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products directly infringes claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the '841 patent; b. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the BCR FISH DNA Probe product directly infringes claims 7 and 8 of the '841 patent. c. Dako is liable for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

d. Dako is liable for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 7) If the jury finds against the UC and Abbott on the first interrogatory, but finds in favor of the UC and Abbott on the second interrogatory, and this verdict survives post-trial motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, then the Court shall enter judgment as follows: a. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the HER2 FISH pharmDX kit and TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '841 patent; b. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix and BCR FISH DNA Probe products directly infringes claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, of the '841 patent; c. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the BCR FISH DNA Probe product directly infringes claims 7 and 8 of the '841 patent; d. Dako is liable for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); and e. Dako is liable for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT 6 CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & WEST LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW M O U N T A I N VI E W

8) If the jury finds against the UC and Abbott on both interrogatories, and this verdict survives post-trial motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, then the Court shall enter judgment as follows: a. Dako and its customers' use in the United States of the HER2 FISH pharmDX kit, TOP2A/CEN-17 FISH Probe Mix, EGFR/CEN-7 FISH Probe Mix, and BCR FISH DNA Probe do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '841 patent. 9) Consistent with the stipulation regarding representative products, the Court shall also enter similar judgments with respect to Dako's other accused products. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

4/30

, 2009 By:

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION RE: INFRINGEMENT 7

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

CASE NO. C-05-03955 MHP

A

C

LI

FO

The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge Patel Northern District of .California arilyn H Judge M

R NIA

13

O OR IT IS S

DERED

RT U O

NO

RT

H