Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 19179
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 22-311 (WCB)
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`
`))))))))))
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC. and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Geoffrey A. Kirsner
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
`New York, NY 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`
`Sandy Shen
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 538-8000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Ryan Landes
`Sandra L. Haberny
`Sarah Cork
`Razmig Messerian
`Patrick T. Schmidt
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street
`10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`
`Stephen Q. Wood
`Trevor J. Quist
`Derek Huish
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`2755 E. Cottonwood
`Parkway Suite 430
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`(801) 515-7300
`
`Original filing date: December 15, 2023
`Redacted filing date:December 29, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 19180
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................4
`ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................5
`A.
`
`Amend......................................................................................................................5
`Judicial Economy Weighs Against Leave to Amend ..............................................8
`B.
`Granting Leave to Amend Would Severely Prejudice Motif.................................11
`C.
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................14
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 19181
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`No. 22-487-GBW, D.I. 68 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2023) ..................................................................14
`
`Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, LP,
`550 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Bohm v. Straw,
`2013 WL 100441 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2013).................................................................................5
`
`,
`252 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2001).............................................................................................5, 6, 11
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.,
`No. 17-1407-CFC, 2020 WL 708433 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2020)....................................4, 5, 8, 10
`
`,
`No. 12-35-RGA, D.I. 62 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2013).......................................................................6
`
`Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.,
`237 F.R.D. 361, 366 (D. Del. 2006) ..................................................................................12, 13
`
`Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 634642 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2017) ............................6, 8, 12, 13
`
`Jang v. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc.,
`No. 10-681-SLR, 2012 WL 3106753 (D. Del. July 31, 2012) ................................................11
`
`Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc.,g
`No. C 13-04519, 2014 WL 852477 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) ...............................................13
`
`Raza v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA Inc.,
`607 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D. Del. 2009)...........................................................................................9
`
`Serrala US Corp. v. Paschke,
`No. 3:21-CV-907, 2022 WL 19333288 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2022).........................................13
`
`Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A)....................................................................................................................9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 299............................................................................................................................1, 9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 19182
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)....................................................................................................................4
`
`Rules
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 19183
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`-hour attempt to introduce a new and unrelated trade secret
`
`cost, and severe prejudice to Defendants. Justice does not require allowing Impossible to amend.
`
`this request now merely reflects its choice to lie in wait and ambush
`
`its adversaries with a claim that it could have sought to pursue months earlier.
`
`not allo
`
`would add a wholly unrelated cause of action (factually and legally) to the patent infringement
`
`allegations that have been at issue for nearly a year and a half and would require significant
`
`alterations to the Yeast Patents case schedule to accommodate extensive additional discovery and
`
`Yeast Patents trial, squeezing a multi-patent, multi-defendant, highly technical patent infringement
`
`case just so Impossible can accelerate its unrelated misappropriation allegations against only
`
`Motif. Impossible fully acknowledges that the DTSA claim is not even relevant to Defendant
`
`Ginkgo, threatening to cast a prejudicial shadow over the entire Yeast Patents case.
`
`-hour addition of Ginkgo as a
`
`tation
`
`for everything to proceed together and instead bifurcated the schedule because it recognized that
`
`See
`
`D.I. 154 at 4-5 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 299); D.I. 161.
`
`all, the Court should again bifurcate and adjudicate that claim on a separate track.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 19184
`
`the Yeast Patents case schedule should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`motion to amend its Complaint for a fourth time comes nearly a year and a
`
`half after Impossible filed its first amended complaint on July 25, 2022, when it added the four
`
`remaining Food Product Patents to the litigation. D.I. 19. Nearly two months after that, on
`
`September 7, 2022, Impossible amended for a second time, adding the Yeast Patents. D.I. 22.
`
`Then, nearly a year later on June 30, 2023, the last day in the Scheduling Order for Impossible to
`
`amend its then operative complaint, Impossible obtained leave to amend for a third time to assert
`
`claims against a new defendant, Ginkgo Bioworks. D.I. 128.
`
`months earlier, beginning in December 2022, Motif identified a Ginkgo patent application
`
`(published under WO 2022/051696)
`
`. Ex. A (Dec.
`
`7, 2022 Paunovich Ltr. to Reed) at 2. In March 2023 more than three months before Impossible
`
`sought leave to amend Motif again identified Ginkgo as the company that possessed the detailed
`
`information about the yeast systems that Impossible had requested in discovery. Ex. B (Mar. 16,
`
`2023 Paunovich Ltr. to Reed) at 1-2. To that end, in a good-
`
`discovery requests, Motif subpoenaed Ginkgo on April 21, 2023 to obtain the discovery Impossible
`
`sought. D.I. 68. Yet Impossible waited until the last day remaining in the schedule to seek to add
`
`Ginkgo to the case. D.I. 127. Its amended complaint was based on public materials and did not
`
`allege any facts that were not available to Impossible months earlier.
`
`In requesting leave to add Ginkgo as a defendant, Impossible also sought a last minute,
`
`months-long global extension to the case schedule so all of its patent infringement claims would
`
`be tried together against both Motif and Ginkgo. See D.I. 154 at 2-4. The Court disagreed with
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 19185
`
`Yeast Patent claims asserted against both Defendants from the Food Product Patent claims asserted
`
`against only Motif, and (2) set a separate and extended schedule for the Yeast Patents case to
`
`scheduling order for the Yeast Patent case and left the schedule for the Food Product Patent case
`
`intact. Id.
`
`pleadings and addition of new parties to the Yeast Patents case (the deadline to amend pleadings
`
`and add parties to the Food Product Patent case had long since passed on June 30, 2023). D.I. 37
`
`at 3; D.I. 161 at 4.
`
`upon search parameters pursuant to the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery, Motif produced
`
`documents to Impossible on a rolling basis throughout 2023. Among its productions, Motif
`
`produced various documents related to its engagement of a third party,
`
`-
`
`2023, the substantial completion deadline for document productions in the Food Product Patents
`
`Motif
`
`Further,
`
`. See Ex.
`
`. Id. at 5-6. Motif understood that
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 19186
`
`Id. at 6.
`
`days before the deadline to amend pleadings in the Yeast Patents case, Impossible informed Motif
`
`of the
`
` documents and two
`
`demanded a meet and confer on less than 24-
`
`See Ex. D (Nov. 29, 2023 Hanson
`
`email to Cork) at 11. After threatening to file its motion unless Motif agreed to meet and confer
`
`with essentially no time to review or investigate the new allegations, Impossible rejected
`
`roposal during the meet and confer that the DTSA claim be severed
`
`a proposal that
`
`defendant. Ex. D (Dec. 1, 2023 Cork email to Hanson) at 2. Instead, Impossible stated that it
`
`would seek to have the DTSA claim consolidated and tried in the Yeast Patents case, on the
`
`existing schedule, with all discovery and expert deadlines remaining unchanged including the
`
`substantial completion deadline for document productions on February 2, 2024
`
`a mere 42 days
`
`after completion of briefing on this motion. Ex. E at 2 (Dec. 1, 2023 Hanson Ltr. to Paunovich
`
`and Brausa); D.I. 161 at 4.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`of the Federal
`
`is futile, made in bad faith, or causes undue
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.,
`
`No. 17-1407-CFC, 2020 WL 708433, at *1-2 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2020) (denying motion to amend
`
`filed after two years of litigation on the last day for such motions when the proposed amendment
`
`would add claims concerning new subject matter). Substantial or undue prejudice arises when
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 19187
`
`(3d Cir. 2001).
`
`, 252 F.3d 267, 273
`
`to the original complaint and the alleged cause of action arose out of an entirely unrelated set of
`
`facts and related to a defendant no
`
`Genentech, 2020 WL
`
`708433, at *1 (quoting Bohm v. Straw, 2013 WL 100441, at *14 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2013) (internal
`
`econo
`
`marks omitted).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Id. (internal quotation
`
`First, Impossible has not
`
`justified its delay, having had the documents on which its proposed DTSA claim is based for
`
`months before seeking leave to amend. Second
`
`this Court to drive the Yeast Patents case to a reasonable and efficient conclusion by including a
`
`new claim not relevant
`
`Third, Motif would be severely prejudiced because it would result
`
`in extensive additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend against new facts and legal
`
`theories that were never previously asserted in this case.
`
`A.
`
`Impossible has failed to justify its months-long delay in seeking to add the DTSA claim.
`
`See Cureton, 252 F.3d
`
`266-
`
`Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, LP, 550 F.3d 263,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 19188
`
`prejudice the delay will cause the court and defendant). The Court may find undue delay or bad
`
`faith when a movant had previous opportunities to assert the claims it seeks to add by amendment.
`
`See Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273. Indeed, courts in this district have denied leave to amend based on
`
`undue delay even where movants adhered to deadlines technically permitted by the scheduling
`
`order. See, e.g., Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc., No. 15-819-LPS-
`
`CJB, 2017 WL 634642, at *2 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2017) (denying leave to amend to add new patents
`
`because the amendment would disrupt the case schedule);
`
`Vitamin Corp., No. 12-35-RGA, D.I. 62 at 1-2 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2013) (denying leave to amend to
`
`add new defendants when motion was filed on the last day permitted by the scheduling order,
`
`Here, Impossible had multiple opportunities to seek to add its DTSA claim earlier. Motif
`
`timely produced d
`
`y its characterization
`
`of the significance of the information in the documents, which refer directly to Impossible and its
`
`heme production facilities and partners. Notably, Impossible does not say when it first located
`
`, and the record demonstrates that they were fully aware
`
`of the documents by no later than the beginning of September. Id.
`
`Fourth Amended Complaint relies solely on
`
` produced by Motif, belying any
`
`suggestion that Impossible obtained new information necessary for its DTSA claim from its
`
`subsequent subpoena to
`
` in November. Id. at 5.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 19189
`
`confidentiality designations.
`
`the Protective Order
`
`which were proper under
`
`to the
`
` documents from the date of their production in July. And when Impossible asked in
`
`September for down-designations and redacted versions that it could share more widely with
`
`Impossible, Motif accommodated in a matter of days. Ex. F (Sept. 18, 2023 Huish email to
`
`Hanson) at 3-
`
`-house counsel had access to the unredacted
`
`copies of these documents by no later than September 22. Id. at 1. Impossible never had to seek
`
`and never sought
`
`relief for its specious cl
`
`it raises the issue now purely as pretext, and as an excuse for waiting so long to seek leave to
`
`amend.
`
`Despite having the relevant information and documents months ago, Impossible waited
`
`until November 29 to inform Motif that Impossible wanted to add an entirely new claim and
`
`allegations to its Complaint. The parties have been before the Court several times since Motif
`
`produced these documents in July and since Impossible was undeniably tuned into them in
`
`September; the parties have met and conferred countless times about myriad topics during that
`
`same period. Not once with any of those opportunities did Impossible indicate that it was even
`
`considering seeking leave to amend its complaint to add this new claim, which would have at least
`
`Instead, by the time this Motion is fully briefed, there will be only 42 days until the
`
`substantial completion deadline for document production in the Yeast Patents case. Motif has not
`
`had the opportunity to serve a single document request related to the new DTSA claim. Nor has
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 19190
`
`allegations against Motif, some of whom may need to be added as parties to the case. Allowing
`
`Impossible to add the DTSA claim now would unquestionably necessitate substantial additional
`
`discovery and, consequently, would significantly delay the Yeast Patents case schedule if the claim
`
`is allowed and consolidated.
`
`At bottom, Impossible had ample opportunity to seek leave to amend earlier but failed to
`
`do so. Its proffered explanation for its delay does not excuse or justify the burden on the Court
`
`and undue prejudice to Motif.
`
`B.
`
`Judicial Economy Weighs Against Leave to Amend
`
`Genentech, 2020 WL 708433, at *2 (quotations omitted) (denying leave to amend where the
`
`for leave to ame
`
`see also Integra, 2017 WL 634642, at *1 (denying motion
`
`Impossible attempts to justify adding its DTSA claim to the Yeast Patents case based on
`
`Br. at 3. That contention fails on multiple levels. First, Impossible contends that its DTSA claim
`
`Id. at 11. Not so. The DTSA claim is directed only at Motif. D.I.
`
`284-1 ¶¶ 240-48. Yet Impossible is seeking to litigate this claim along with wholly unrelated
`
`patent infringement claims, which carry separate and distinct factual and legal burdens, asserted
`
`against both Motif and Ginkgo. This will introduce substantial confusion and complications to the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 19191
`
`Cf. 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). Indeed, when the Court was faced with a similar situation pertaining to
`
`the Foodstuff Patents (asserted against only Motif) and the Yeast Patents (asserted against both
`
`Motif and Ginkgo), the Court bifurcated the case and set an extended schedule for the Yeast Patent
`
`the cases was
`
`-12:2.
`
`at issue. Br. at 11. The Yeast Patents relate to genetic engineering technology
`
`e.g.
`
`-containing proteins, heme biosynthesis proteins, and a protein that
`
`can drive gene transcription (Mxr1). E.g.
`
`proposed DTSA claim involves information about the logistics and mechanics of a fermentation
`
`process
`
`from such ru
`
`284-1 ¶¶ 94-95.
`
`that bear no relation to the Yeast Patent technology. D.I.
`
`Although Motif does not know at this stage what the actual alleged trade secrets are,
`
`because they are described at a level of generality devoid of substantive content, Impossible argues
`
`definition, patented techno
`
`Raza v. Siemens Med. Sols.
`
`USA Inc.
`
`see also 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A) (the term
`
`reasonable measures to keep such information secret
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 19192
`
`similarity between, for instance, the specific cells claimed in the Yeast Patents and the costs or
`
`if there were, the elements and necessary evidence to prove infringement of the Yeast Patents are
`
`entirely different from the elements and evidence necessary to prove misappropriation of any
`
`alleged trade secrets. Discovery and trial about these distinct claims will require different
`
`documents, different witnesses, and different experts.
`
`Genentech presents an analogous situation. Genentech argued that adding an additional
`
`claims. 2020 WL 708433, at *2. The Court denied the amendment citing the burdens of expanding
`
`-pending patent
`
`to an efficient conclusion. Id.
`
`This case beckons the same result. Adding a trade secret claim in the Yeast Patents case
`
`will only complicate the adjudication of the issues surrounding the Yeast Patents. The current
`
`Yeast Patents case already involves at least 17 asserted claims across two patents against two
`
`different defendants.
`
`beyond the situation in Genentech because it injects an entirely new legal theory into the litigation,
`
`requiring the jury to grapple with factual an
`
`Genentech, 2020 WL 708433, at *1, leave to amend
`
`should be denied. Far from promoting judicial economy, the DTSA claim would significantly
`
`expand, not narrow, the scope of the Yeast Patents case.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 19193
`
`C.
`
`Granting Leave to Amend Would Severely Prejudice Motif
`
`on the opposing party. Cureton
`
`allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend
`
`Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273. As courts in this district have
`
`opposing the amendment. Jang v. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc., No. 10-681-SLR, 2012 WL 3106753
`
`(D. Del. July 31, 2012).
`
`would impose an enormous burden on Motif. Should Imp
`
`proceed, Motif will be presented with a brand new claim to address under an unworkably short
`
`timeline. See Section IV.A. supra. As an initial matter, Motif will need to evaluate the sufficiency
`
`ation of its trade secrets before it can even respond to the complaint
`
`(whether by answer or motion to dismiss), let alone meaningfully start with discovery. Impossible
`
`initially promised to provide a particularized trade secret disclosure by December 8, but Impossible
`
`now refuses to provide this information until one week after it files the amended complaint, if
`
`permitted to do so
`
`i.e., likely sometime in January. See Ex. D at 1-2. Upon doing so, Motif may
`
`ove to compel a more particular trade secret
`
`or months. With a deadline in the Yeast Patent case for the substantial completion of document
`
`production on February 2, 2024, and for the close of fact discovery on June 7, 2024, Motif will be
`
`left with little, if any, time to develop defenses, serve discovery requests, depose numerous party
`
`and third-party witnesses, and engage experts to consult and address the new technical and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 19194
`
`are focused largely on the conduct of companies and individuals that are neither current parties
`
`nor current employees of the parties to the case
`
`this is not to mention the fact that the deadline
`
`for adding parties has already passed. And, as discussed above, none of this work or potential new
`
`parties would overlap with issues being actively litigated in the Yeast Patents case. See Section
`
`IV.A. supra.
`
`Courts have denied leave to amend in far less drastic situations, even when (unlike here)
`
`newly added claims involved the same parties and same accused products, but presented new
`
`factual and legal issues that would disrupt the existing case schedule. For example, in Integra
`
`Lifesciences, the court denied leave to amend to add two new patent claims to the existing patent
`
`product and thus there would be no prejudice or delay. 2017 WL 634642, at *1. The court
`
`additional fact and expert discovery, claim construction and discovery dispute proceedings, and
`
`dispositive moti
`
`*2.
`
`Id. at
`
`Similarly, in Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., the court denied leave to
`
`rely new factual
`
`court determined that the non-
`
`these new theories were they introduced at this stag
`
`Id. at 370.
`
`The same logic applies here, but with even more force because the DTSA claim Impossible seeks
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 19195
`
`to add here is even more disconnected from the current claims than the new claims were in Integra
`
`Lifesciences and Inline Connection Corp.
`
`non sequitur. Br. at 9. A trade secret claim is not simple
`
`by any means
`
`even though, as best Motif can tell at this stage, at least
`
`e.g.
`
`party fermentation companies used by both Impossible and Motif. Regardless, in order to defend
`
`against these specious claims, Motif will need to conduct extensive discovery into, for example,
`
`developm
`
`ep the information secret from
`
`third parties such as
`
`. Defending against these claims will not be straightforward or simple,
`
`especially because, by all appearances, Impossible reverse-
`
`and its entire misappropriation claim based on what it found in discovery from Motif. Serrala US
`
`Corp. v. Paschke, No. 3:21-CV-907, 2022 WL 19333288, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2022)
`
`state
`
`Jobscience, Inc.
`
`v. CVPartners, Inc., No. C 13-04519, 2014 WL 852477, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014)
`
`vagueness, then take
`
`discovery into the defendants' files, and then cleverly specify what ever happens to be there as
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 19196
`
`e
`
`claim together is far more complex than trying the patent claims alone. See Avadel CNS
`
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 22-487-GBW, D.I. 68 (D. Del. Nov. 3,
`
`2023) (denying a motion to consolidate trade secret and patent claims between the same parties
`
`because of delay to the ongoing patent case, possible overcomplication of issues, and potential for
`
`jury confusion).
`
`In short, this is not a case where adding a claim is an issue of form over substance and does
`
`little to disrupt the ongoing action. To the contrary, the addition of the DTSA claim here will
`
`significantly complicate an already complex case, require expenditure of substantially more time
`
`and resources by the parties and this Court, and place an undue burden on the jury to understand
`
`additional factual and legal issues, based on different documents and witnesses, and asserted
`
`against different parties. If the Court allows Impossible to add the DTSA claim at all, it should be
`
`bifurcated from the Yeast Patents case and tried separately, on a different case schedule and with
`
`a separate jury trial.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 19197
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Ryan Landes
`Sandra L. Haberny
`Sarah Cork
`Razmig Messerian
`Patrick T. Schmidt
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street
`10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`
`Stephen Q. Wood
`Trevor J. Quist
`Derek Huish
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway
`Suite 430
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`(801) 515-7300
`
`Geoffrey A. Kirsner
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
`New York, NY 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`
`Sandy Shen
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 538-8000
`
`December 15, 2023
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 19198
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 15, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`December 15, 2023, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`David E. Moore, Esquire
`Bindu A. Palapura, Esquire
`Andrew M. Moshos, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Matthew R. Reed, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Wendy L. Devine, Esquire
`Susannah M. L. Gagnon, Esquire
`Kristina Hanson, Esquire
`Jessica Ramsey, Esquire
`Shannon Gillespie McComb, Esquire
`Joyce K. Yao, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Lorelei P. Westin, Esquire
`Natalie J. Morgan, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 328 Filed 12/29/23 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 19199
`
`Michael T. Rosato, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Daniel M. Silver, Esquire
`Alexandra M. Joyce, Esquire
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire
`Adam R. Brausa, Esquire
`Vera Ranieri, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Aaron D. Bray, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Caleb D. Woods, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street, NW
`Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20037
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`2
`
`