Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

Last updated

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.
Delaware District Court.gif
Court United States District Court for the District of Delaware
DecidedJuly 13, 2006
Defendant Illumina, Inc.
Plaintiff Anthony Czarnik
Citation437F. Supp. 2d252(D. Del.2006).
Court membership
Judge sitting Joseph James Farnan Jr.

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Del. 2006), was a United States patent law case heard before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its ruling, the district court was the first court to hold that reputational harm could be sufficient to establish standing in an action for correction of named inventor under 35 U.S.C. § 256. [1] That ruling led to a split among district courts that has yet to be definitively resolved. [2]

Contents

Background

Anthony Czarnik was a chemist and one of the founders of Illumina, serving as its chief scientific officer from 1998 to 2000. [3] [4] He had a falling out with his co-founders, which eventually led to his termination. [5] At the time of his departure, several patent applications had been filed by Illumina listing Czarnik as an inventor or co-inventor. Almost a year after Czarnik left Illumina, a patent attorney for the company sent Czarnik a letter informing him that Illumina had continued to file patent applications on which the company believed Czarnik was a co-inventor, based in part on invention disclosure forms listing Czarnik as such. Illumina sought for Czarnik to assign all rights to the patents to the company, as he had done while he was employed. While reviewing Illumina's patents and applications pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Czarnik discovered that Illumina had filed and prosecuted numerous patents that contained his inventions, without identifying him as an inventor. Czarnik sent letters to the USPTO, requesting a correction of inventorship on the patents and pending applications, but the USPTO did not respond. [6]

In June 2005 Czarnik sued Illumina, seeking corrections of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, seeking declaratory judgments of patent unenforceability, and alleging a state law claim of fraud. [6] Section 256 of the Patent Act states, "Whenever . . . through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the [USPTO] Director may . . . issue a certificate correcting such error." [7] If the patent owner will not voluntarily request the change, an omitted inventor may bring a claim in federal court. Czarnik alleged in his complaint that he "suffered damage to his reputation and standing within the scientific community" and did not receive the reputational benefits of being named as an inventor. He also alleged that he was unable to join a start-up company, resulting in a loss of approximately $1 million. [8]

District Court

After Czarnik filed an amended complaint, Illumina filed a motion to dismiss. Illumina argued that Czarnik lacked standing to bring his claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256; in the alternative, Defendant argued that 35 U.S.C. § 256 is inapplicable to pending patent applications. Illumina also argued that there was no case or controversy on which a declaratory judgment action could be based and that Czarnik had failed to state a claim for fraud under Delaware law. [8]

The district court first explained that a plaintiff must meet the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution in order to bring a claim in federal court. Therefore, Czarnik had the burden of demonstrating (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of, and (3) that the injury was redressable. In omitted inventor cases, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered some sort of pecuniary consequence in order to have standing; mere reputational harm is generally insufficient to establish standing. Illumina argued that Czarnik merely suffered reputational harm and therefore lacked standing. [9]

The district court noted that the Federal Circuit, in Chou v. University of Chicago, [10] had suggested in dicta that it "is not implausible" that reputational injury could satisfy the standing requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 256. [11] In Chou the appellate court noted that "being considered an inventor of important subject matter is a mark of success in one's field… Pecuniary consequences may well flow from being designated as inventor." [11] The district court held that dismissal of Czarnik's §256 claim for lack of standing was not appropriate, noting, "Plaintiff has alleged that he has suffered harm to his reputation and standing in the scientific community. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that he has been unable to secure a position at a start-up company and earn a salary comparable to his salary at Illumina." [12]

As to Illumina's alternate argument, the district court noted that with respect to the pending applications, Czarnik had requested the Court to issue an order directing the USPTO to correct inventorship on the pending applications, relying on 35 U.S.C. 116. The court distinguished Section 116 from Section 256 and agreed with Illumina that the court had no statutory authority to order corrections to pending applications. [13] The court also found there to be no case or controversy relating to the claims for a declaratory judgment and dismissed those claims but found that Czarnik had alleged elements of a state law fraud claim. Therefore, the court granted Illumina's motion in part and denied it in part. [14]

Significance

The holding in Czarnik v. Illumina Inc. was the first time a court held that reputational harm was sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement to bring a correction of inventorship claim. The Czarnik ruling has since been relied on by multiple courts and commentators for the proposition that reputational harm can confer standing on a plaintiff pursuing a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256. [15] [16] For example, in Hoang v. Abbott Laboratories, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois stated that "one court determined that a plaintiff had standing to assert a claim under section 256 for alleged harm to his reputation", referencing Czarnik. [17] [18] Courts and legal scholars have characterized this idea as a "moral right to credit". [19] [20] However, other courts have rejected the theory, leading to a split among district courts that has yet to be definitively resolved. [21] The Federal Circuit in Shukh v. Seagate Technology LLC held that "concrete and particularized reputational injury can give rise to Article III standing." [22] This is true "even where an employee has assigned all of his interest in an invention and cannot pursue an infringement action." [23] The Czarnik ruling was cited to show courts have jurisdiction to declare and correct inventors for issued patents, but not patent applications, where the authority to declare and correct inventors for patent applications “belongs exclusively to the USPTO.” [24] As for common law fraud claims, the Czarnik ruling was cited to show an allegation of common law fraud must demonstrate actual damages, where damages such as a delay in awarding a contract, business trips to respond to an adverse party's conduct, and having to routinely discuss an adverse party's conduct with customers were too speculative to be considered. [25]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade dress</span> Characteristics of visual appearance of a product

Trade dress is the characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is an aspect of trademark law, which is a form of intellectual property protection law.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d),(passed as part of Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  106–113 ) is a U.S. law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. The law was designed to thwart "cybersquatters" who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party. Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech, while others dispute these complaints. Before the ACPA was enacted, trademark owners relied heavily on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue domain name registrants. The FTDA was enacted in 1995 in part with the intent to curb domain name abuses. The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act. Senator Leahy stated that "it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others".

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set boundaries of American Indian reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between White Americans and citizens of Indigenous nations. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.

In United States patent law, the reduction to practice is the step in the formation of an invention beyond the conception thereof. Reduction to practice may be either actual or constructive. The date of reduction to practice was critical to the determination of priority between inventors in an interference proceeding under the discontinued first-to-invent system as well as for swearing behind a reference under that system.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Illumina, Inc. is an American biotechnology company, headquartered in San Diego, California. Incorporated on April 1, 1998, Illumina develops, manufactures, and markets integrated systems for the analysis of genetic variation and biological function. The company provides a line of products and services that serves the sequencing, genotyping and gene expression, and proteomics markets, and serves more than 155 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark infringement</span> Violation of trademark rights

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

<i>School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz</i>

School of Visual Arts v. Diane Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804 (2003), is a New York Supreme Court case in which it was held that sending and/or directing "large volumes of unsolicited job applications and pornographic e-mails" by defendant to plaintiff if it depletes hard disk space, drains processing power, and negatively impacts other system resources of the plaintiff is sufficient to establish "a cause of action for trespass to chattels." The ruling has been followed and cited in a number of cases in different jurisdictions.

<i>Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876, was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” However, as a "bizarre conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed, 669 F.3d 1349, was a notable case precedent in the United States patent law decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2012 that deals with the questions of inventorship and attorney's fee shifting in patent lawsuits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthony Czarnik</span> American biochemist and inventor (born 1957)

Anthony William Czarnik is an American chemist and inventor. He is best known for pioneering studies in the field of fluorescent chemosensors and co-founding Illumina, Inc., a biotechnology company in San Diego. Czarnik was also the founding editor of ACS Combinatorial Science. He currently serves as an adjunct visiting professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.

References

  1. ↑ "Memorandum Opinion, Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc. 437 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Del. 2006)".
  2. ↑ Faryniarz v. Ramirez, No. 3:13-CV-01064 (CSH), 2015 WL 6872439 (D. Conn. Nov. 9, 2015).
  3. ↑ "Anthony W. Czarnik Ph.D.: Executive Profile & Biography". Bloomberg. September 29, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  4. ↑ Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., No. D041034, 2004 WL 2757571 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2014).
  5. ↑ Czarnik successfully sued Illumina for wrongful termination. Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., No. D041034, 2004 WL 2757571 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2014). Chemical & Engineering News 2005, 83(7), 22.
  6. 1 2 Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 255( D. Del. 2006).
  7. ↑ 35 U.S.C.   § 256
  8. 1 2 Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 255–56( D. Del. 2006).
  9. ↑ Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 256–57( D. Del. 2006).
  10. ↑ Czarnik, Anthony (July 3, 2001). "Chou v. University of Chicago". CaseText.com. Retrieved November 2, 2021.
  11. 1 2 Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 256( D. Del. 2006).
  12. ↑ Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 257( D. Del. 2006).
  13. ↑ Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 257–58( D. Del. 2006).
  14. ↑ Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,437F. Supp. 2d252, 258–60( D. Del. 2006). Mann, Philip P. "The Invisible Man" Intellectual Property Today 2007, 12 (Dec.), 39.
  15. ↑ Shukh v. Seagate Tech. LLC, No. 10–404 (JRT/JJK), 2013 WL 1197403 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2013)
  16. ↑ Krauser v. Evollution IP Holdings, Inc.,975F. Supp. 2d1247, 1256–57( S.D. Fla. 2013).
  17. ↑ Hoang v. Abbott Labs., No. 08-c-189, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49468 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2009); see also, GE v. Wilkins 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22005 *4 fn. 2 (E.D. Ca. Jun. 13, 2011).
  18. ↑ Crouch, Dennis (2021). "Reattribution, the Poison Pill and Inventorship". Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review. 5 (2): 138.
  19. ↑ Rantanen, Jason; Jack, Sarah (2019). "Patents as Credentials". Washington and Lee Law Review. 76 (1): 316.
  20. ↑ Fok, Ernest (2021). "Challenging the International Trend: The Case for Artificial Intelligence Inventorship in the United States". Santa Clara Journal of International Law. 19 (1): 57.
  21. ↑ Faryniarz, 2015 WL 6872439 at *7; see also, Pedersen v. Geschwind, 141 F. Supp. 3d 405, 417 (D. Md. 2015).
  22. ↑ Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC,803F.3d659, 663( Fed. Cir. 2015).
  23. ↑ Kamdem-Ouaffo v. PepsiCo Inc., 657 Fed. Appx. 949, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Shukh, 803 F.3d at 661).
  24. ↑ Altavion, Inc. v. Konica-Minolta Sys. Lab. Inc., No. C 07-06358 MHP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37768 at *22 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2008); Capricorn Pharma, Inc. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., No. 08-873-JJF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73227 at *22-23 (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2009).
  25. ↑ TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 447, 465-466 (D. Del. 2007).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.