AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-08624
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In AbCellera v. Bruker, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi ordered unredacted production of three document categories in a patent-discovery dispute.
AbCellera must produce three categories of documents in unredacted form to Bruker Cellular Analysis. Bruker may obtain those materials for its challenge to AbCellera’s damages theories, while the other agreements listed in Section 1 of the 2020 agreement need not be produced.
What happened
AbCellera Biologics and Bruker Cellular Analysis disputed whether Bruker could obtain complete, unredacted copies of agreements and royalty reports involving AbCellera, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and others. The documents concerned bamlanivimab, an antibody that AbCellera said was discovered using the patented methods at issue.
Bruker argued that the materials could help challenge AbCellera’s reasonable-royalty and lost-profits calculations by showing that other intellectual property or technologies contributed to bamlanivimab’s success. AbCellera argued that agreements involving patents or intellectual property unrelated to the asserted patents were irrelevant as comparable licenses or evidence of a royalty rate.
Magistrate Judge DeMarchi ruled that AbCellera must produce the 2020 NIH/NIAID Agreement, the 2019 NIAID Research Collaboration Agreement, and its related royalty reports in unredacted form. The court found no non-speculative basis for requiring production of the other agreements listed in the 2020 agreement.
The detailed version
- AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-08624
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
This order resolves a discovery dispute about Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.’s demand for complete, unredacted copies of four categories of documents:
- The May 4, 2020 Patent License Agreement between AbCellera Biologics, Inc. and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
- Other agreements listed in Section 1 of that 2020 agreement.
- AbCellera’s royalty reports to the National Institutes of Health under the 2020 agreement.
- The March 12, 2019 Research Collaboration Agreement among AbCellera, NIAID, and the University of Texas at Austin.
The court stated that AbCellera argued, and Bruker did not dispute, that the 2020 agreement and the 2019 research agreement did not include a license or other provision involving the patents asserted in this case. Bruker nevertheless sought the documents to rebut AbCellera’s damages theories. Bruker asserted that AbCellera’s reasonable-royalty and lost-profits calculations relied on all royalty revenues from bamlanivimab, an antibody AbCellera contended was discovered using the patented methods. Bruker argued that other intellectual property and technologies may also have contributed to bamlanivimab’s development.
Court’s analysis
The court agreed that agreements concerning patents or other intellectual property unrelated to the asserted patents would be irrelevant if offered as comparable licenses or evidence of an established royalty rate. But the court explained that Bruker sought the documents for a different purpose: investigating other contributions to the success or profitability of bamlanivimab, to the extent AbCellera relied on that success or profitability in its damages theories.
The court concluded that the following materials were at least discoverable: the 2020 NIH/NIAID Agreement, the 2019 NIAID Research Collaboration Agreement, and AbCellera’s royalty reports to the National Institutes of Health under the 2020 agreement. The court ordered AbCellera to produce those materials to Bruker in unredacted form.
By contrast, the court found that Bruker had not identified any non-speculative basis for discovering the other agreements listed in Section 1 of the 2020 agreement. AbCellera therefore did not have to produce those agreements.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered unredacted production of the 2020 NIH/NIAID Agreement, the 2019 NIAID Research Collaboration Agreement, and the royalty reports. The court did not require production of the other agreements listed in Section 1 of the 2020 agreement. The order states that the dispute was resolved without oral argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.