Fluidigm Corporation v. Ionpath

Background

Fluidigm Corporation and Fluidigm Canada Inc. market mass-cytometry methods, devices, and antibody-metal tags used to analyze cells and tissue. They asserted three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,180,386, 10,072,104, and 10,436,698. The plaintiffs alleged that Ionpath competed in the same market and directly and indirectly infringed the patents. They also alleged that the plaintiffs’ antibody-metal tags were sold for use only with the plaintiffs’ instruments and that Ionpath encouraged customers to use the tags improperly, interfering with the plaintiffs’ contractual relationships.

Ionpath moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court considered whether the complaint’s factual allegations, accepted as true, plausibly supported the challenged claims.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Under California law, this claim requires a valid contract with a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract, intentional conduct designed to induce a breach or disruption, an actual or inevitable breach or disruption, and resulting damages. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege an actual or inevitable breach, increased costs from the plaintiffs’ contract performance, or resulting harm.

The complaint referred to Professors Sean Bendall and Michael Angelo, but it did not allege that they were customers bound by the relevant sales terms. It also did not identify any other customers who had breached or would inevitably breach those terms. The court explained that allegations that Ionpath encouraged or promoted a breach described Ionpath’s conduct, not an actual breach by a contracting party. The allegation that Ionpath caused a loss of business opportunities was also too speculative without supporting facts.

Indirect Infringement

The court separately considered induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c). Both claims require knowledge of the patent and knowledge of infringement.

For the ’386 and ’698 patents, the court held that Ionpath’s 2011 citation to an earlier related patent did not plausibly show that Ionpath knew of patents that were not filed until 2018 and issued in 2019. For the ’104 patent, the complaint alleged that a September 2018 letter notified Ionpath that the patent had issued, but it did not allege that the letter included a claim chart or another description of infringement. Knowledge of the patent alone did not support an inference that Ionpath knew of alleged infringement.

For induced infringement, the court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Ionpath specifically intended its customers to infringe. Descriptions of potentially infringing methods in an article and brochure were not enough to show that Ionpath recommended, encouraged, or promoted infringement. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not explain how Ionpath’s conduct corresponded to all relevant elements of the asserted patent claims, including vaporizing, atomizing, and ionizing multiple elemental tags. The allegations that Ionpath knew or was willfully blind to its customers’ infringement were legal conclusions unsupported by sufficient facts.

For contributory infringement, the court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Ionpath’s products had no substantial non-infringing uses. The repeated allegations that Ionpath’s MIBIscope was “purpose-built” for infringement were conclusory and did not explain why the product could not be used in non-infringing ways.

Enhanced Damages for Willfulness

The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege entitlement to enhanced patent damages for willful infringement. It found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Ionpath knew of the ’386 and ’698 patents before the lawsuit, so it could not support pre-lawsuit willfulness claims for those patents. Although the complaint alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’104 patent after the September 2018 letter, it did not allege that the letter accused Ionpath of infringement or explained how Ionpath infringed. The complaint also did not plausibly allege egregious conduct or knowledge of infringement. The court did not consider post-filing allegations raised only in the plaintiffs’ opposition brief.

Disposition

The court granted Ionpath’s motion to dismiss the claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, contributory infringement, induced infringement, and enhanced damages. The order did not add a prejudice designation. It stated that the plaintiffs could move for leave to file another amended complaint by February 13 at noon, and that they could seek leave to amend if evidence of egregious conduct later came to light. Ionpath did not challenge the direct-infringement claims, so those claims proceeded.