AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.

AbCellera · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · May 19, 2025 · No. 20-cv-08624-JST (VKD)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California resolved a discovery dispute concerning Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.'s request for testimony about the resolution of a royalty-related dispute between AbCellera and the University of British Columbia. The court found the requested testimony relevant and timely, concluded that Bruker had been prevented from fully questioning AbCellera's witnesses, and ordered plaintiffs to submit a declaration supporting their attorney-client privilege and common-interest objections.

Holdings

  1. Bruker Cellular's request for additional deposition testimony was not untimely because Bruker did not learn of the relevant matter or receive the underlying report until shortly before the discovery-dispute deadline.
  2. Information concerning the calculation of royalties under an exclusive license to the asserted patents, including whether and how the parties resolved a disagreement about the royalty terms, is relevant to the parties' reasonable-royalty damages calculations.
  3. Bruker had an opportunity to question UBC through Dr. Sharp's deposition but was effectively prevented from questioning AbCellera witnesses about whether and how the royalty-related dispute was resolved.
  4. The court could not determine on the existing record whether privilege and the common-interest doctrine protected the requested oral communications, and therefore required plaintiffs to submit a declaration establishing the bases for those objections.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bruker Cellular's request for additional deposition testimony was untimely.
  2. Whether testimony concerning the royalty dispute and its resolution was relevant to the calculation of patent infringement damages.
  3. Whether Bruker Cellular had a sufficient opportunity to question plaintiffs' witnesses about the dispute's resolution.
  4. Whether attorney-client privilege and the common-interest doctrine protected the requested oral communications from discovery.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016)(followed)
  • Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)(followed)
  • United States v. Sanmina Corp., 968 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607, 612 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578-79 (N.D. Cal. 2007)(followed)
  • Health & Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02255-EJD (VKD), 2023 WL 187565, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2023)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…