AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc.

Background

AbCellera Biologics Inc. and The University of British Columbia, which the opinion collectively calls “AbCellera,” alleged that Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. infringed patents involving microfluidic devices used in assays for antibody discovery and methods for isolating antibody sequences. The opinion states that Bruker Cellular was formerly known as Berkeley Lights, Inc. Bruker denied infringement and contended that the asserted patents were invalid.

Bruker asserted an affirmative defense that the patents were invalid because of improper inventorship. AbCellera also alleged willful infringement, induced infringement, and willful blindness.

Discovery dispute

The parties asked the court to resolve whether Bruker’s responses to AbCellera’s Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 9 were sufficient. The court resolved the dispute without oral argument.

Interrogatory No. 7 asked Bruker to identify and describe the legal and factual basis for its improper-inventorship contention, including supporting, refuting, or related facts, circumstances, and documents. Bruker said it intended to amend its response, but only after AbCellera substantially completed its document production and answered Bruker’s Interrogatory No. 1.

The court found that Bruker’s response was not entirely conclusory because it described its contention that Dr. Singhal was not an inventor of the ’408 patent. The court stated that whether those circumstances were legally sufficient to overcome the presumption that the patent correctly named Dr. Singhal was a merits question, not a discovery question. But the court agreed that another portion of Bruker’s response was conclusory and did not fairly answer the interrogatory. That portion referred to documents related to conception and reduction to practice without identifying the documents or the purported conception date. It also did not address AbCellera’s position about the individuals’ inventive contributions. The court required Bruker to amend its response as directed.

Interrogatory No. 9 asked when and how Bruker first became aware of AbCellera, its technology and services, the asserted patents, and Dr. Carl Hansen’s research at The University of British Columbia. Bruker described when and how it first learned about the asserted patents, but did not describe when or how it first learned about AbCellera, its technology and services, or Dr. Hansen’s research. Bruker objected that those subjects were not relevant to willful infringement.

The court explained that willful infringement requires specific intent to infringe at the time of the challenged conduct. It also explained that willful blindness may be shown by deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of wrongdoing. AbCellera’s theory was that Dr. Singhal, who later joined Bruker, knew about Dr. Hansen’s work and AbCellera’s development of the patents, and that Bruker therefore knew—or deliberately avoided confirming the likely possibility—that it was using AbCellera’s patented technology. The court found that AbCellera was entitled to explore that theory in discovery.

Ruling

The court required Bruker to amend its response to Interrogatory No. 7 no later than 14 days after service of its amended response to AbCellera’s Interrogatory No. 1, unless the parties agreed otherwise. It required Bruker to amend its response to Interrogatory No. 9 by August 15, 2024, unless the parties agreed otherwise. The order addressed discovery obligations and did not decide whether the patents were invalid, whether Bruker infringed them, or whether any infringement was willful.