Fluidigm Corporation v. Ionpath

Background

Fluidigm Corporation and Fluidigm Canada Inc. were identified as the patent owner, and IONpath, Inc. was the defendant. The parties competed in mass cytometry methods and systems that analyze cells using antibody-metal tags called reagents. Fluidigm alleged that IONpath sold MIBIscope systems before IONpath marketed its own reagents, while Fluidigm was the only commercial supplier of the necessary reagents. Fluidigm’s sales terms prohibited customers from using its reagents with another manufacturer’s system.

Fluidigm alleged that several entities bought both MIBIscope systems and Fluidigm reagents, then used the reagents with the MIBIscope systems. It claimed this breached the customers’ sales terms and that IONpath intentionally interfered with those contractual relationships.

Fluidigm also asserted direct and indirect infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,180,386, 10,072,104, and 10,436,698. The proposed complaint alleged that IONpath continued marketing its systems after learning of the alleged infringement. A prior order had dismissed claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, indirect infringement, and enhanced damages. Fluidigm sought permission to amend and reassert largely the same claims.

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires, unless there is undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. IONpath challenged only whether the proposed amendment would be futile. Applying the standard used to evaluate whether a complaint plausibly states a claim, the court considered the factual allegations true for this motion but disregarded unsupported legal conclusions.

Contract-interference claim

Under California law, a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations requires, among other things, an actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship. The court held that Fluidigm plausibly alleged that customers breached their sales terms by using Fluidigm reagents with MIBIscope systems. The court found the inference plausible even though some entities might have made or obtained reagents from other sources. It also said that IONpath’s challenge to whether it supplied reagents before July 2019 went beyond what the court could properly consider on the amendment motion.

Willful-infringement claims

The court held that the proposed complaint adequately alleged willful infringement occurring after the lawsuits began. According to the allegations, service of the original complaint on September 23 notified IONpath about alleged infringement of the ’386 and ’104 patents, and the first amended complaint served on October 11 communicated the same regarding the ’698 patent. After those dates, IONpath allegedly launched its MIBIscope, sold four more systems, promoted the systems in articles, and demonstrated them at a conference.

The court limited the willfulness allegations by timing: the proposed complaint supported willfulness claims only after September 23 for the ’386 and ’104 patents and after October 11 for the ’698 patent. The court stated that pre-complaint willfulness was not sufficiently alleged. It also noted that the proposed complaint still included theories of liability that earlier orders had dismissed, including a theory that knowledge of one patent conveys knowledge of later patents in the same family.

Disposition

Leave to amend was granted. The case proceeded with three patents, claims for direct and indirect infringement, claims for post-suit willfulness, and a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. Before filing, Fluidigm was directed to tailor its willfulness requests to post-suit conduct and omit theories already dismissed in the current or January 24 order.