AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc.

Background

In this consolidated patent action, AbCellera Biologics Inc. and The University of British Columbia alleged infringement of fifteen patents generally directed to methods using microfluidics in cell analysis. AbCellera served original infringement contentions in 2021 and amended disclosures in 2023. Its December 29, 2023 amended contentions supplemented, rather than replaced, its earlier disclosures and used one chart for each asserted patent despite identifying multiple accused instrumentalities.

Bruker Cellular Analysis moved to strike the amended infringement contentions under the Patent Local Rules. AbCellera opposed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the contentions did not provide reasonable notice of how the accused instrumentalities practiced each limitation of the claimed methods. Because the asserted claims were method claims, AbCellera had to explain how the accused systems were used to perform the claimed steps, not merely show that the systems were capable of performing them or quote technical documents containing similar words. The contentions had to state where and how each limitation was found in each accused instrumentality. The court also rejected AbCellera’s argument that more detail had to wait until after claim construction; the Patent Local Rules required at least one infringement theory based on at least one claim construction for each accused instrumentality.

The court further held that AbCellera had not adequately provided a separate chart for each accused instrumentality. Assuming an accused instrumentality was a workflow performed using a Beacon system and a chip, AbCellera had to chart each distinct infringing combination separately. It could group systems, workflows, or chips that were alike if the grouping was made clear, but it could not combine all systems, workflows, and chips into one chart while leaving Bruker to determine which combinations were accused.

Except for the disclosure concerning the “1,600 to 20,000 microfluidic chambers” limitation in two identified patents, the court found AbCellera’s doctrine-of-equivalents disclosures inadequate. AbCellera could not satisfy the disclosure requirement merely by citing or quoting Bruker’s technical documents. If AbCellera could not state a basis for a doctrine-of-equivalents contention, it had to remove the phrase “and equivalents thereof.”

The court also held that stating priority dates as “no later than” July 7, 2010, or July 16, 2010, depending on the patent family, did not comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(f). AbCellera had to identify a specific priority date for each asserted claim.

Ruling

The court found Bruker’s arguments persuasive but ordered AbCellera to amend its infringement contentions instead of striking them. The amended contentions had to address the deficiencies described in the order and were limited to the accused instrumentalities allowed by a separate order. AbCellera had to serve the amended disclosures, including amendments under Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), (e), and (f), by April 8, 2024.