AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc.

Background

AbCellera Biologics Inc. and the University of British Columbia sued Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. in a consolidated action involving fifteen asserted patents. The patents are method patents: one patent family covers methods for assaying cellular binding interactions, and another covers methods of culturing cells.

The plaintiffs alleged that Bruker’s Beacon, Beacon Select, and Beacon Quest products; related chips, kits, reagents, software, and workflows; and its Culture Station system infringed the asserted patents. They alleged direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), as well as indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c), based on alleged inducement and contribution to customers’ infringement.

Procedural Issues

The plaintiffs argued that Bruker had waived its dismissal arguments because the motion was filed after the cases had been consolidated. Bruker acknowledged that the motion was untimely as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for the first two cases but argued that failure to state a claim could still be raised under Rule 12(c), a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court agreed that the defense had not been waived and considered the arguments under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.

The plaintiffs also argued that the motion was moot because they had served infringement contentions under the Patent Local Rules. The court rejected that argument, explaining that nonpublic infringement contentions did not replace the pleading requirements for a publicly filed complaint. It also noted that Judge DeMarchi had found those contentions deficient.

Direct Infringement

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim. In a patent case, the plaintiff does not have to plead infringement element by element, but the complaint must contain factual allegations explaining why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim and must give the defendant fair notice of the alleged infringement.

The court rejected Bruker’s argument that the plaintiffs’ use of a common set of allegations for all fifteen patents was automatically too general. The court explained that related patents may have claims that differ in scope and that the same accused products can plausibly infringe multiple patents.

The court also found sufficient the allegations identifying Bruker’s NanoPen chambers as the claimed chambers and their openings as the claimed apertures, inlets, or outlets. Bruker’s arguments that the NanoPens did not satisfy those limitations raised claim-construction or non-infringement issues that the court said could not properly be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court nevertheless granted dismissal of the direct-infringement claims because the complaint did not plausibly allege how the accused workflows met every step of the claimed methods. For example, the complaint plausibly alleged that antibody-secreting cells were retained in NanoPen chambers, but it did not explain how the antibody-discovery workflows satisfied later steps involving exposing the antibody to a capture substrate and flowing a fluid containing the biomolecule into the chamber.

The court also found that the allegations concerning the cell-line-development and cell-therapy workflows did not provide sufficient notice of how those workflows met every patent limitation. For the patents covering cell-culturing methods, the complaint alleged only that Bruker’s Culture Station could culture cells for use with the Beacon products. It did not identify how the culturing process satisfied the patent limitations, or which workflows involved cell culturing or the Culture Station. The court concluded that alleging the sale of an apparatus capable of infringing use was insufficient for these method patents.

Indirect Infringement

Indirect infringement requires an underlying act of direct infringement, typically by someone other than the defendant. Because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Bruker’s customers directly infringed the patents using the accused products and services, the court also granted dismissal of the indirect-infringement claims.

Disposition

The court granted Bruker’s motion to dismiss. It granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and allowed them 21 days to file an amended complaint solely to cure the deficiencies identified in the order. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.