Fluidigm Corporation v. Ionpath

Background

Fluidigm Corporation and Fluidigm Canada Inc. sued Ionpath, Inc. in a patent and business-interference case. Fluidigm markets mass-cytometry methods, systems, and Maxpar antibody-metal-tag reagents. Ionpath markets the MIBIscope system and MIBItags reagents.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ionpath encouraged customers to use Maxpar reagents with the MIBIscope, despite Fluidigm’s sales terms. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed the interference claim but later allowed the plaintiffs to reassert it with stronger allegations in a second amended complaint.

The deadline for amended pleadings was May 28. The plaintiffs later sought leave to file a third amended complaint. They initially proposed adding breach-of-contract and Lanham Act claims, but withdrew the proposed contract claim. The proposed Lanham Act claim alleged that Ionpath’s published research falsely stated that Ionpath had used only its own materials, while allegedly using Fluidigm’s Maxpar reagents.

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally calls for permission to amend a complaint when justice requires. But because the deadline for amended pleadings had passed, the plaintiffs also needed to show “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4). The court explained that the central question was whether the plaintiffs had diligently sought the information supporting the amendment.

The plaintiffs said they learned during an August 28 deposition that Ionpath had used Maxpar reagents with a MIBIscope in 2017 and had submitted research describing that work. The court accepted for purposes of its analysis that the plaintiffs could not have known those specific facts earlier. Even so, the court found that the plaintiffs had not diligently investigated them.

According to the court, the plaintiffs’ earlier complaints had already alleged that Ionpath used Maxpar reagents with its MIBIscope, encouraged others to do so, and published research based on such use. The plaintiffs also knew by February that Ionpath had published another paper describing use of Maxpar reagents with the MIBIscope. The court concluded that focused interrogatories or requests for admission could have uncovered the facts supporting the proposed claim before the amendment deadline. The plaintiffs did not serve that type of discovery until June 30, more than a month after the deadline, and offered no explanation for waiting.

Ruling

The court denied the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint because the plaintiffs had failed to diligently pursue discovery concerning the claims they sought to add. The court did not reach the merits of the proposed Lanham Act claim.

The court separately denied the motion to seal because Ionpath had not submitted the required declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). The court vacated the October 15 hearing. Judge William Alsup entered the order on October 9, 2020.