AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.

Background

AbCellera Biologics Inc. and The University of British Columbia sued Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. The opinion states that AbCellera holds an exclusive license from the University of British Columbia covering the asserted patents and pays royalties under that license. During the litigation, the University of British Columbia completed a redacted type of review of AbCellera’s records, and the parties disputed the review’s conclusions and resolution. Bruker sought deposition testimony about that dispute and its resolution.

The plaintiffs argued that Bruker’s request was untimely and irrelevant. They also objected that communications about the dispute were protected by attorney-client privilege and the common-interest doctrine. The opinion explains that attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between lawyers and clients made to obtain or provide legal advice. The common-interest doctrine can prevent waiver when separately represented parties confidentially communicate about a shared legal interest, but it does not create a privilege by itself.

Rulings on Discovery Objections

The court rejected the timeliness objection. Bruker said it first learned of the underlying matter on March 25, 2025, during a deposition and received the related document on April 3, 2025. The parties filed their discovery dispute four days after the plaintiffs’ final privilege log and on the last permitted filing date. The court therefore concluded that Bruker’s request was not untimely.

The court also found the requested information relevant to the parties’ damages calculations. It explained that the royalty structure in the exclusive license, and the royalties actually paid, could inform the value of the patented technology and the reasonable-royalty analysis. The court identified three relevant subjects: whether the plaintiffs had resolved their dispute, how they resolved it if they had, and their agreed or differing interpretations of the license’s royalty terms.

The court reviewed testimony from four witnesses. It concluded that Bruker was effectively prevented from questioning AbCellera witnesses Dr. John-Paul Heale, Andrew Booth, and Dr. Carl Hansen about the disputed matter and its resolution. By contrast, Bruker questioned University of British Columbia witness Dr. Brett Sharp at length and was not instructed not to ask him whether or how the disagreement was resolved. The court therefore found that Bruker had an opportunity to question the University of British Columbia but had not obtained the relevant testimony from AbCellera.

Privilege and Further Proceedings

The court did not decide whether the requested oral communications were protected. It observed that the plaintiffs and the University of British Columbia shared a legal interest in enforcing patent rights, litigating against Bruker, defending counterclaims, and pursuing a possible settlement, but did not appear to share a legal interest in resolving the redacted matter. The court found the record insufficient to determine whether the plaintiffs’ privilege and common-interest arguments applied.

Because the dispute concerned oral communications rather than documents, the court directed the plaintiffs to provide a declaration explaining the bases for attorney-client privilege and application of the common-interest doctrine. The declaration could be submitted privately to the court if necessary to protect the asserted privilege. If AbCellera continued to object to testimony about resolution of the redacted matter on those grounds, it had to file or submit that declaration by May 23, 2025. The court stated that, absent a valid privilege objection, it would require AbCellera to produce a witness able to answer questions on the subject.

Sealing

The court granted Bruker’s motion to seal portions of the discovery-dispute letter and Exhibits 4 through 10. Applying the good-cause standard for a discovery matter, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ position that the information contained highly confidential financial and business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm.

Disposition

The order found the discovery request timely and relevant, granted the sealing motion, and ordered further proceedings concerning the privilege and common-interest objections. It did not finally determine whether the plaintiffs had to provide the disputed testimony.