By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Pacific Biosciences of California, et al., Civil Action No. 10-735-SLR (December 22, 2011), the Court denied the motion of Defendant Life Technologies Corporation (“Life”) to sever or stay the claims asserted against it in plaintiff’s complaint. In its motion to sever or stay, Life claimed that it did not commercialize the technology accused of infringement. Id. at 1-2. Life also asserted that the other defendants accused of infringement were its direct competitors and, absent any allegation that Life’s activities or products overlapped with the other defendants in any way, the claims against Life should proceed separately in order to protect Life from an expensive and potentially harmful discovery process. Id. at 2.
The Court found that an issue of fact existed as to whether Life continued to make presentations about the accused Starlight technology after February 2010 and whether such activities would constitute an infringing “offer for sale.” Id. at 3-4. Thus, in light of the commonalities in the accused technologies and the overlap of the accused patents, the Court denied Life’s motion to sever or stay the claims against it. Id. at 5.
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.