Illumina, Inc. et al v. QIAGEN, N.V. et al

Filing 211

ORDER DENYING 208 MOTION TO RELATE. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ILLUMINA, INC, and ILLUMINA
CAMBRIDGE LTD.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO RELATE

v.
QIAGEN N.V., QIAGEN GmbH, QIAGEN
GAITHERSBURG, INC., QIAGEN SCIENCES,
LLC, QIAGEN INC. (USA), QIAGEN
REDWOOD CITY, INC., AND INTELLIGENT
BIO-SYSTEMS, INC.,

16

Defendants.
/

17
18

No. C 16-02788 WHA

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ administrative motion to relate Illumina, Inc. et al. v.

19

BGI Genomics Co., Ltd., et al. (Case No. C 19-03770 WHO) (“Illumina v. BGI”), and third-

20

party Complete Genomics Inc.’s opposition thereto (Dkt. Nos. 208, 209). The motion is

21

DENIED.

22

Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, actions are considered related where (1) they “concern

23

substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event”; and (2) it “appears likely that

24

there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the

25

cases are conducted before different Judges.”

26

The primary overlap between the instant action (which has been closed for two years)

27

and Illumina v. BGI involves the asserted patents. This, by itself, is insufficient to show that the

28

actions concern the same property. (Because plaintiffs filed the action they seek to relate three

1

years after filing the instant action, Patent Local Rule 2-1(a)(1) does not apply.) These actions

2

involve different defendant companies and different accused products and as such, involve

3

different issues of infringement and damages.

4

Nor does it appear likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor or

5

conflicting results if the case is not related. True, the undersigned judge issued an order

6

granting provisional relief in the instant action, which order analyzed one of the patents-in-suit

7

in detail. But as Color Genomics points out, those evaluations were preliminary. Moreover,

8

provisional relief was granted nearly three years ago and the undersigned judge now remembers

9

little about the patents. Accordingly, this order finds that the actions are not related.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: July 22, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2