Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Sequenom, Inc. et al

Filing 247

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE TWO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS 244 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/25/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 No. C 12-00865 SI VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al., ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE MULTIPLE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS Plaintiffs, v. 11 SEQUENOM, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. / 13 14 Now before the Court is Sequenom’s motion for leave to file multiple summary judgement 15 motions, submitted on September 19, 2014. Docket No. 244. On September 22, 2014, Verinata filed an 16 opposition. Docket No. 245. On September 23, 2014, CUHK filed a statement of non-opposition. 17 Docket. No. 246. 18 19 BACKGROUND 20 This is a patent infringement action. Verinata Health, Inc. and the Board of Trustees of the 21 Leland Stanford Junior University (collectively “Verinata”) accuse defendants Sequenom, Inc. and 22 Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC (collectively “Sequenom”) of infringing U.S. Patent 23 No. 7,888,017 (“the ’017 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018 (“the ’018 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 24 8,195,415 (“the ’415 patent”). Docket No. 186, First Supp. Compl. ¶¶ 54-83. In addition, plaintiffs 25 allege claims against CUHK pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146, seeking review and reversal of the Board of 26 Patent Appeals and Interferences’s decisions and judgments in Interference Nos. 105,920, 105,923, and 27 105,924, which held that the claims of the ’018 patent lack a sufficient written description as required 28 by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Id. ¶¶ 2, 32, 43, 52, 84-101. 1 DISCUSSION 2 In its motion, Sequenom seeks leave from the Court to file two summary judgement motions, 3 separately addressing issues raised by (1) the ‘415 patent, and (2) the ‘017 and ‘018 patents. It further 4 requests that CUHK be permitted to file its own motion for summary judgment to address the adequacy 5 of the ‘018 patent’s written description. Verinata opposes the motion, and urges the Court to require 6 Sequenom and CUHK to file coordinated motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that the scope of the issues to be addressed by CUHK and Sequenom are 8 sufficiently distinct so as to necessitate that they each be allowed to submit separate motions for 9 summary judgment. However, the Court does not find that Sequenom has articulated exigencies that 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 require granting it leave to file multiple motions for summary judgement. Accordingly, in the interest 11 of fairness and judicial efficiency, the Court rules as follows: 12 13 The parties – Sequenom, CUHK, and Verinata – shall each submit a single motion for summary judgment. This order resolves Docket No. 244. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: September 25, 2014 17 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?