1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. AFFYMETRIX, INC.
 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. AFFYMETRIX, INC.

Case No. 17-cv-01394-H-NLS.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and BECTON, DICKINSON and COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. AFFYMETRIX, INC.; and LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. California.

February 20, 2019.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 35 U.S.C. § 0001
Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 0001 Establishment of PTO
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

The Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara A. Fiacco , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Brendan Taber Jones , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Donald Ross Ware , Foley Hoag, pro hac vice, Jeremy Younkin , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Joanna McDonough , Foley Hoag LLP, Lucas Paul Watkins , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Marco Johnson Quina , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Maidman , Foley Hoag, pro hac vice & Thomas Jesse Hindman , Hindman APC.

Becton, Dickinson and Company, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara A. Fiacco , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Brendan Taber Jones , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Donald Ross Ware , Foley Hoag, pro hac vice, Jeremy Younkin , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Joanna McDonough , Foley Hoag LLP, Lucas Paul Watkins , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Marco Johnson Quina , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Jesse Hindman , Hindman APC.

Sirigen, Inc. & Sirigen II Limited, Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara A. Fiacco , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Donald Ross Ware , Foley Hoag, pro hac vice, Jeremy Younkin , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Joanna McDonough , Foley Hoag LLP, Marco Johnson Quina , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Jesse Hindman , Hindman APC.

Affymetrix, Inc. & Life Technologies Corp., Defendants, represented by Brenda L. Danek , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas E. Lumish , Latham & Watkins LLP, Graham Edward Phillips , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Arbus Sherry , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Nathanial J. McPherson , Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Rip Finst , Life Technologies Corporation, Brent Thomas Watson , Latham & Wakins, LLP, Clara Wing-Kwan Wang , Latham & Watkins LLP, Jeffrey Gerard Homrig , Latham & Watkins LLP & Roger J. Chin , Latham & Watkins LLP.

Life Technologies Corp. & Affymetrix, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Brenda L. Danek , Latham & Watkins LLP, Douglas E. Lumish , Latham & Watkins LLP, Jeffrey Gerard Homrig , Latham & Watkins LLP, Nathanial J. McPherson , Latham & Watkins LLP, Rip Finst , Life Technologies Corporation, Roger J. Chin , Latham & Watkins LLP & Brent Thomas Watson , Latham & Wakins, LLP.

Becton, Dickinson and Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Barbara A. Fiacco , Foley Hoag LLP, Brendan Taber Jones , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Donald Ross Ware , Foley Hoag, Jeremy Younkin , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Joanna McDonough , Foley Hoag LLP, Lucas Paul Watkins , Foley Hoag LLP, Marco Johnson Quina , Foley Hoag LLP, Thomas Jesse Hindman , Hindman APC & Brendan Taber Jones , Foley Hoag LLP.

The Regents of the University of California, Counter Defendant, represented by Barbara A. Fiacco , Foley Hoag LLP, Brendan Taber Jones , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Donald Ross Ware , Foley Hoag, Jeremy Younkin , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Joanna McDonough , Foley Hoag LLP, Lucas Paul Watkins , Foley Hoag LLP, Marco Johnson Quina , Foley Hoag LLP, Richard Maidman , Foley Hoag, pro hac vice, Thomas Jesse Hindman , Hindman APC & Brendan Taber Jones , Foley Hoag LLP.

Sirigen II Limited & Sirigen, Inc., Counter Defendants, represented by Barbara A. Fiacco , Foley Hoag LLP, Donald Ross Ware , Foley Hoag, Jeremy Younkin , Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice, Joanna McDonough , Foley Hoag LLP, Marco Johnson Quina , Foley Hoag LLP & Thomas Jesse Hindman , Hindman APC.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 8 [Doc. No. 352]

On February 15, 2019, the parties filed a one-page joint motion for determination of discovery dispute No. 8. (Doc. No. 352.) In the joint motion, Plaintiffs argue that certain statements contained in Defendants' expert...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases