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

Background

The case is a consolidated action involving patent-infringement claims brought by AbCellera Biologics, Inc. and The University of British Columbia against Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. The plaintiffs accuse Bruker of infringing seven patents. The court had set October 20, 2023, as the deadline to amend pleadings and April 21, 2025, as the deadline for fact discovery. Expert discovery was scheduled to close on July 23, 2025, with summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions due August 21, 2025, and trial set for January 26, 2026.

Bruker asked to modify the scheduling order and amend its answer. The proposed amendment would add an affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging inequitable conduct—alleged intentional misconduct in dealing with the Patent Office—concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,704,018 and the patent family consisting of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,087,408, 10,421,936, and 10,738,270.

Bruker alleged that inventors Véronique Lecault, Carl Hansen, and James Piret intentionally withheld two presentations that Dr. Lecault made to the Stem Cell Network. The presentations occurred on November 7, 2008, and June 28, 2009. Bruker argued that they disclosed inventions covered by the relevant patents, were presented on a non-confidential basis, and occurred more than one year before the earliest claimed priority date for the ’408 patent family.

Legal Standard

Because the deadline for amending pleadings had passed, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. That rule requires a party seeking to change a scheduling order to show “good cause,” with the court’s consent. The main consideration is whether the moving party acted diligently in obtaining the facts needed for the proposed amendment. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry ends.

If a party shows good cause under Rule 16, the court then considers whether to allow the amended pleading under Rule 15. The court did not reach that second step because it found that Bruker had not shown good cause.

Court’s Analysis

The plaintiffs produced the presentations on August 15, 2024. Bruker did not seek further discovery about them until Dr. Lecault’s deposition on April 7, 2025. Bruker said the plaintiffs’ designation of the presentations as confidential under a protective order gave it no reason to investigate their confidentiality earlier.

The court rejected that explanation. It found that the presentations identified their presenter and dates on their face and were not marked confidential in their original form. The court also noted that Bruker could have questioned Dr. Lecault earlier or used other discovery methods to confirm the presentations’ confidentiality status. During the eight-month period, Bruker served other discovery requests, issued a deposition notice, sought third-party discovery, and amended its invalidity contentions, but did not seek additional discovery about the presentations.

Disposition

The court found that Bruker had not established good cause under Rule 16. Judge Jon S. Tigar therefore denied Bruker’s motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended pleading. The opinion does not decide the merits of the proposed inequitable-conduct defense or counterclaim.