XGEN lawsuit update, snipped from the most recent CALP 10-Q . . . true to form, it's going slower than a dawdling glacier, though not without some drama (check out the disqualification of AntiCancer's attorneys & related files; reckon that slowed 'em down a bit!):
>>On March 7, 2005, AntiCancer, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Xenogen in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Court”) alleging infringement of five patents of AntiCancer. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. On March 29, 2005, AntiCancer amended its complaint to include an additional claim seeking a judgment that one of our imaging patents exclusively in-licensed from Stanford University, U.S. patent No. 5,650,135, is invalid. On May 10, 2005, Xenogen filed its answer to AntiCancer’s amended complaint. Xenogen denied all of AntiCancer’s allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses, including its position that AntiCancer’s patents cited in its complaint, and its patent claims relating to in vivo imaging of fluorescence, are invalid. Caliper is vigorously defending itself against AntiCancer’s claims and believes AntiCancer’s complaint is without merit. Concurrent with filing Xenogen’s answer to AntiCancer’s complaint, Xenogen had filed its own counterclaims against AntiCancer. These counterclaims allege that AntiCancer infringes two of Xenogen’s U.S. patents, Nos. 5,650,135 and 6,649,143, both relating to in vivo imaging and with a priority date before each of the AntiCancer patents alleged in its amended complaint. Both parties seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages, including enhanced damages for willful infringement. Caliper intends to vigorously pursue its claims against AntiCancer.
The Court held the first three days of a Markman hearing relating to these claims on June 13, 2006 through June 15, 2006. On July 14, 2006, Xenogen filed a motion to disqualify AntiCancer’s attorneys due to numerous violations of ethical rules by such attorneys. After a hearing on this motion, on August 10, 2006, the Court issued an order granting Xenogen’s motion to disqualify AntiCancer’s attorneys. On October 18, 2006, the Court issued a supplemental and clarifying order to its previous August 10, 2006 order in which the Court, among other things, (i) granted Xenogen’s motion to restart the Markman hearing, (ii) granted Xenogen’s motion to prohibit the transfer of tainted files to AntiCancer’s successor counsel, (iii) continued Xenogen’s motion for sanctions against AntiCancer’s previous counsel, (iv) granted AntiCancer’s motion for an extension of time to file a writ to seek appellate review of the Court’s August 10, 2006 order as supplemented and clarified on October 18, 2006, (v) vacated all pending hearing dates in the case, and (vi) granted AntiCancer permission until November 6, 2006 to amend its complaint. AntiCancer may file a writ seeking such appellate review. The Court has indicated that if AntiCancer obtains appellate review of the order(s), further proceedings in this case will be stayed pending the outcome of any appellate review of the Court’s order. On November 6, 2006, AntiCancer served its Third Amended Complaint in this matter and voluntarily dismissed Stanford University from this proceeding. The Third Amended Complaint adds Caliper as a defendant. All defendants will file responsive pleadings in due course with the Court.
Caliper currently is not able to determine the outcome of the patent infringement lawsuit with AntiCancer.<<
Cheers, Tuck |
