Severing competitors is not warranted due to commonality of accused products
Helicos Biosciences Corporation v. Pacific Biosciences of California, et al., Civ. No. 10-735a-SLR, December 22, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to sever or stay is denied.
Defendant in this patent case involving DNA sequencing technology moved to stay or sever. Defendant asserted that stay was appropriate because it does not commercialize the technology accused of infringement but, instead, the infringement claims arise from a presentation, which it asserted is not an offer to sell. Defendant also asserted that sever was appropriate because the other defendants are direct competitors and, absent any allegation that its product overlap, the Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) “common transaction” requirement is not met. The motion to stay or sever was denied. The record is incomplete at this juncture to determine if the defendant’s actions amounted to an offer to sell. Common questions of fact and law resulting from commonalities in the accused technologies warranted joinder.
