Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 2178
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ILLUMINA, INC.,
`
`------------------------------------------------------ x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`Defendants.
`:
`------------------------------------------------------ x
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GUARDANT HEALTH, INC.; HELMY
`ELTOUKHY; and AMIRALI TALASAZ
`
`C.A. No. 1:22-cv-334-VAC
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(1), 12(B)(2), AND 12(B)(6)
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Orin Snyder*
`Jane M. Love*
`Brian A. Rosenthal*
`Grace E. Hart*
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 351-4000
`
`Greta B. Williams*
`Sophia A. Vandergrift*
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 955-8500
`
`Dated: May 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Guardant Health,
`Inc., Helmy Eltoukhy, and AmirAli Talasaz
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Trey Cox*
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 698-3100
`
`*pro hac vice pending
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2179
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Eltoukhy and Dr. Talasaz Co-Founded Guardant to Develop Life-
`Saving Cancer Testing Technology .........................................................................4
`
`Illumina Alleges that Defendants Misappropriated Its Confidential
`Information a Decade Before Filing This Action ....................................................5
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................7
`
`Illumina Has Failed to Plead a Plausible Inventorship and Ownership
`Claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 ...................................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Illumina Failed to Plausibly State a Claim for Inventorship........................9
`
`Illumina Does Not Plausibly Allege an Ownership Interest in the
`Patents at Issue, and Thus it Lacks Standing .............................................13
`
`Illumina Cannot Challenge Patent Applications under Section 256 ..........16
`
`C.
`
`Illumina’s Trade Secrets Misappropriation Claim Fails as a Matter of Law .........17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Illumina Has Not Adequately Alleged a Trade Secret...............................17
`
`To the Extent They Are Pleaded with Any Specificity, Illumina’s
`Claims Are Time-Barred............................................................................19
`
`D.
`
`Illumina’s Breach of Contract Claims Fail as a Matter of Law .............................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Illumina’s Breach of Contract Claims Are Untimely ................................21
`
`Illumina’s Breach of Contract Claims Are Deficient Because
`Illumina Fails to Plead the Essential Terms of the Contracts ....................23
`
`E.
`
`This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction over Dr. Eltoukhy and Dr. Talasaz .........24
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 2180
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Acrisure of California, LLC v. SoCal Com. Ins. Servs., Inc.,
`2019 WL 4137618 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2019) .............................................................17, 18, 19
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................14
`
`AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC,
`388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................24
`
`Apple Inc. v. Allan & Assocs. Ltd.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 42 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................................................21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................7, 9
`
`Blackhawk Network Inc. v. SL Card Co., Inc.,
`2022 WL 704032 (D. Ariz. Mar. 9, 2022) .........................................................................10, 12
`
`Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc.,
`40 F.3d 1223 (Fed Cir. 1994)...............................................................................................9, 11
`
`In re Chemed Corp., Shareholder Derivative Litig.,
`2015 WL 9460118 (D. Del. Dec. 23, 2015)...............................................................................6
`
`Chou v. Univ. of Chicago,
`254 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................13
`
`Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC,
`292 F. Supp. 2d 583 (D. Del. 2003) .........................................................................................21
`
`Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.,
`437 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Del. 2006) ...................................................................................13, 16
`
`Display Research Labs., Inc. v. Telegen Corp.,
`133 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ...................................................................................17
`
`E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Okuley,
`344 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................17
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 2181
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.,
`376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................9
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................9
`
`Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States,
`220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000).....................................................................................................13
`
`Gross v. Symantec Corp.,
`2012 WL 3116158 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2012) ..........................................................................23
`
`Hor v. Chu,
`699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................16
`
`In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017).......................................................................................................7
`
`inno360, Inc. v. Zakta, LLC,
`50 F. Supp. 3d 587 (D. Del. 2014) .............................................................................................7
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................14
`
`Joint Stock Soc. Trade House of Descendants of Peter Smirnoff, Off. Purveyor to
`the Imperial Ct. v. Heublein, Inc.,
`936 F. Supp. 177 (D. Del. 1996) ..............................................................................................25
`
`Klang v. Pflueger,
`2014 WL 12587028 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014)......................................................................9, 20
`
`Langan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................23, 24
`
`Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc.,
`569 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................13
`
`Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti,
`195 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................18
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,
`132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................7
`
`Nami v. Fauver,
`82 F.3d 63 (3d Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................7
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 2182
`
`NBCUniversal Media, LLC v. Superior Court,
`225 Cal. App. 4th 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) ..........................................................................22
`
`Neuberger v. Gordon,
`567 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2008) ...........................................................................................6
`
`Pappalardo v. Stevins,
`746 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................16
`
`Pellerin v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
`877 F. Supp. 2d 983 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ......................................................................................18
`
`Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`664 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................23
`
`Reach & Assocs., P.C. v. Dencer,
`269 F. Supp. 2d 497 (D. Del. 2003) .........................................................................................25
`
`Regents of Univ. of California v. Chen,
`2017 WL 3215356 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2017) ..........................................................................21
`
`Space Data Corp. v. X,
`2017 WL 5013363 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) .........................................................................18
`
`Spokeo v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) ...........................................................................................................11, 13
`
`Vanderbilt Univ. v. ICOS Corp.,
`601 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f(x) AG,
`2018 WL 1456697 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) .........................................................................18
`
`In re VerHoef,
`888 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vint v. Universal Studios Co. LLC,
`2021 WL 6618535 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021) .........................................................................23
`
`Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1410346 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014) .........................................................................20
`
`Whitewater West Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse,
`981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................13, 15
`
`Wiggins v. Physiologic Assessment Servs., LLC,
`138 A.3d 1160 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) .....................................................................................25
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 2183
`
`STATUTES
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 .................................................................................................................17
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.6 ...........................................................................................................20, 21
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337 ............................................................................................................21
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 2184
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`This action is a brazen attempt by Illumina to put its chief rival out of business and stifle
`
`competition in the market for life-saving cancer technologies—a move that would suppress
`
`innovation and raise prices, all to the detriment of healthcare consumers and cancer patients in the
`
`U.S. and abroad. Illumina does not seek to vindicate any legitimate rights against Guardant.
`
`Illumina wants to force Guardant out of the market by bringing this sham patent and trade secrets
`
`case premised on alleged conduct that occurred ten years ago. Illumina’s claims are hopelessly
`
`time-barred and deficient as a matter of the law. The Court should dismiss the complaint.
`
`Defendant Guardant Health Inc. (“Guardant”) is a trailblazing company that is
`
`revolutionizing the fight against cancer through blood-based cancer detection testing. Guardant
`
`was founded in 2012 by Defendants AmirAli Talasaz and Helmy Eltoukhy, who are entrepreneurs
`
`and pioneers in the biotech industry. Before founding Guardant, Dr. Talasaz and Dr. Eltoukhy
`
`worked for Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”), which develops and manufactures tools for analysis of
`
`genetic variation and function. Dr. Talasaz and Dr. Eltoukhy left Illumina in 2012 and 2013,
`
`respectively, to work for Guardant. Since Guardant’s founding, Illumina has been a close partner
`
`of Guardant. Illumina has supplied Guardant with the next generation sequencing instruments
`
`upon which Guardant’s cancer detection testing technology is built. As a supplier to Guardant for
`
`nearly a decade, Illumina has had extensive interaction with Guardant and access to proprietary
`
`data about Guardant’s development and the commercialization of its testing technology. Over the
`
`course of its years-long relationship with Guardant, Illumina never once claimed Guardant or its
`
`founders misappropriated Illumina’s intellectual property or proprietary information.
`
`In 2021, Illumina acquired GRAIL for $8 billion. GRAIL is Guardant’s main competitor
`
`in developing and marketing blood-based cancer tests. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)
`
`concluded Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL would harm innovation and potentially increase prices
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 2185
`
`
`
`in violation of the antitrust laws and sued to block the deal. The Directorate-General for
`
`Competition of the European Commission also took issue with the proposed transaction based on
`
`concerns about its anticompetitive effects. Remarkably, in an unprecedented move, Illumina
`
`closed the acquisition in the face of the objections of these regulators. Once Illumina acquired
`
`GRAIL, everything changed. Illumina turned on Guardant, its longtime business partner and new
`
`competitor. Months after Illumina closed its acquisition of GRAIL, Illumina manufactured and
`
`launched this lawsuit, claiming for the first time Guardant’s technology belongs to Illumina.
`
`The timing of this lawsuit reveals Illumina’s true motives. Illumina’s lawsuit comes
`
`shortly after Guardant cooperated with the FTC in its antitrust investigation of the proposed
`
`Illumina-GRAIL transaction, and just months after two Guardant executives publicly testified
`
`against the transaction during the FTC’s administrative trial. Illumina admits in the Complaint it
`
`has known about Defendants’ supposed misappropriation of confidential information since at least
`
`June 2019—and Guardant’s public patent applications have put Illumina on inquiry notice—at
`
`minimum—for much longer. Illumina offers no excuse for its years-long delay in filing this
`
`lawsuit. Illumina also does not (and cannot) identify any specific competitive harm or damages
`
`Illumina suffered as a result of the purported misappropriation. Illumina’s delay in filing this
`
`action—and the fact that it never once complained about the conduct that now forms the basis of
`
`its complaint—make clear Illumina brought this retaliatory lawsuit to punish Guardant for
`
`cooperating in a federal law enforcement investigation and inhibit fair and robust competition in
`
`the market. If Illumina is permitted to eliminate competition in this way, innovation will dwindle
`
`and prices will increase, all to the detriment of cancer patients. In the Complaint, Illumina seeks
`
`to acquire ownership of 35 of Guardant’s patents, including patents foundational to Guardant’s
`
`business. Illumina’s anti-competitive tactics are an abuse of the court system. Its claims against
`
`Guardant should be dismissed as a matter of law.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 2186
`
`
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should dismiss all claims in the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), respectively, for the following reasons.
`
`1.
`
`Illumina’s inventorship and ownership claim fails as a matter of law for at least
`
`three reasons. Illumina fails to plead the elements required under 35 U.S.C. § 256 for a joint
`
`inventorship claim; Illumina lacks standing to challenge the inventorship of Guardant’s patents
`
`because it has not alleged an ownership interest; and only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) has the power to correct the inventorship of pending patent applications.
`
`2.
`
`Illumina’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim under the California Uniform
`
`Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) is also not actionable. Illumina is required to identify the trade
`
`secrets at issue, not simply list broad categories of allegedly confidential information, without
`
`specificity or limitation. But that is precisely what the Complaint does. Illumina pleads an open-
`
`ended list of broad categories of information Defendants purportedly misappropriated—including,
`
`for example, Illumina’s “knowledge, methods, techniques, processes, programs, and compilations
`
`for genetic sequencing.” (Compl. ¶ 104.) But Illumina never points to even a single, specific item
`
`of information within those categories it contends is a trade secret. This is insufficient as a matter
`
`of law. To the extent Illumina attempts to identify any alleged trade secrets with particularity,
`
`those purported trade secrets were publicly disclosed in Guardant’s patent applications filed at
`
`least six years ago and are therefore barred by the CUTSA’s three-year statute of limitations.
`
`3.
`
`Illumina’s breach of contract claims are also time-barred because they arise from
`
`alleged conduct that occurred a decade ago while Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz were employed at
`
`Illumina. Illumina attempts to plead around the clear statute of limitations bar by alleging it did
`
`not learn of the alleged breaches—which include Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz’s incorporation of
`
`Guardant in 2011 and purported misappropriation in 2012—until 2019. This makes no sense.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 2187
`
`
`
`Illumina could have discovered any purported misappropriation of confidential information with
`
`minimal diligence. And publicly available information, including Guardant’s patent applications
`
`and SEC filings, put Illumina on, at a minimum, inquiry notice of the alleged breaches many years
`
`ago. In any event, Illumina’s contract claims are fatally deficient on the pleadings. Illumina fails
`
`to plead the material terms of any of the contracts Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz supposedly breached.
`
`4.
`
`Illumina’s trade secret and contract claims against Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz also
`
`fail for lack of personal jurisdiction. Illumina fails to establish Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz, who
`
`have no connection to Delaware other than their roles with Guardant (a Delaware corporation) and
`
`their involvement in unrelated patent litigation, are subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Eltoukhy and Dr. Talasaz Co-Founded Guardant to Develop Life-Saving
`Cancer Testing Technology
`
`Guardant is a precision oncology company based in Redwood City, California. (Compl.
`
`¶ 10.) Guardant is dedicated to helping patients at all stages of cancer live longer and healthier
`
`lives through the power of genetic sequencing that can detect and identify cancers based on DNA
`
`found in blood samples—from informing better treatment in patients with advanced cancer, to
`
`developing new ways of monitoring recurrence in cancer survivors, and screening to find cancer
`
`at its earliest and most treatable stage in everyone else.
`
`Guardant was co-founded by Dr. Talasaz, who joined Guardant as its first employee in
`
`June 2012 (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 28-30), and Dr. Eltoukhy, who was an early investor in Guardant and
`
`joined the company as an employee in January 2013 (id. ¶¶ 11, 63-64). Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz
`
`are the co-CEOs of Guardant. Drs. Eltoukhy and Talasaz previously worked for Illumina, which
`
`is a company headquartered in San Diego that develops and manufactures tools for analysis of
`
`genetic variation and function. (Id. ¶ 4.) Dr. Talasaz was hired by Illumina in 2009, and worked
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 2188
`
`
`
`for Illumina until June 25, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 28.) Dr. Eltoukhy was hired by Illumina in 2008,
`
`submitted his resignation in December 2012, and left Illumina on January 2, 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 63.)
`
`B.
`
`that Defendants Misappropriated Its Confidential
`Illumina Alleges
`Information a Decade Before Filing This Action
`
`Illumina’s claims arise from Defendants’ alleged misappropriation of Illumina’s
`
`intellectual property a decade ago. First, the Complaint alleges that Illumina employees somehow
`
`contributed novel concepts and work to 35 patents assigned to Guardant. (Compl. ¶ 85.) Illumina
`
`alleges that Dr. Eltoukhy, while employed at Illumina in 2012, collaborated with Dr. Talasaz and
`
`contributed to the conception of certain of the claims in these 35 patents and that other Illumina
`
`employees (Illumina identifies only Frank Steemers) also contributed to the conception of certain
`
`of these 35 patents. (Id. ¶ 91; see id. ¶¶ 40-62.) Illumina alleges that the inventorship of
`
`Guardant’s patents should be “corrected” to add as inventors Dr. Eltoukhy and at least
`
`Mr. Steemers, “a senior Illumina director and researcher,” who, according to Illumina, would then
`
`be obliged to assign their rights in those inventions to Illumina. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 93-96, 100-102.)
`
`Illumina further alleges that during the second half of 2012, Dr. Eltoukhy provided
`
`assistance to Guardant by obtaining and forwarding Illumina confidential material to his personal
`
`Gmail account and at times forwarding Illumina information to Dr. Talasaz, who by that time was
`
`working for Guardant. (Compl. ¶ 49.) The Complaint does not allege that Dr. Talasaz himself
`
`ever used Illumina confidential information in his invention process. Illumina alleges only that
`
`Dr. Eltoukhy somehow used this information to “collaborate with” Dr. Talasaz. (Id. ¶ 91.)
`
`Second, Illumina alleges Defendants misappropriated Illumina’s trade secrets, including
`
`by Dr. Eltoukhy’s requesting, and sharing with Dr. Talasaz, PowerPoint slides from Mr. Steemers
`
`in June 2012, and through Dr. Eltoukhy’s retention of his Illumina computer, which contained
`
`approximately 51,000 emails, when his employment ended in January 2013. (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 2189
`
`
`
`65, 105-06.) Illumina claims it suffered some unspecified competitive harm and damages as a
`
`result of this alleged misappropriation. (Id. ¶¶ 114-16.) Illumina does not, however, allege how
`
`Dr. Talasaz relied on any of these Illumina materials in inventing anything for Guardant.
`
`In 2019, six years after Dr. Eltoukhy left Illumina, during discovery in a separate litigation
`
`against Foundation Medicine, Inc. and Personal Genome Diagnostics, Guardant discovered the
`
`existence of these emails in a backup of Dr. Eltoukhy’s computer. (Compl. ¶¶ 75-78.) Illumina
`
`does not allege Dr. Eltoukhy or anyone else at Guardant was aware of, had access to, or accessed,
`
`these files between 2013 and 2019. Illumina never alleges it was unaware of Drs. Eltoukhy and
`
`Talasaz’s active involvement in Guardant after they left Illumina—nor could it given the close and
`
`longstanding partnership between the two companies. Illumina also does not allege it performed
`
`any diligence whatsoever between the end of Drs. Talasaz’s and Eloutkhy’s employment with
`
`Illumina (in 2012 and 2013, respectively) and 2019 in order to determine whether they had taken
`
`any confidential Illumina information. The Complaint also admits that Illumina has known about
`
`the purported misappropriation of these emails since at least June 2019 (id. ¶¶ 75, 78), yet
`
`inexplicably waited nearly three years before filing this lawsuit. Even worse, despite having
`
`known about the allegedly misappropriated emails for years, the Complaint is devoid of any factual
`
`allegations identifying even a single misappropriated trade secret in any of these emails.
`
`Third, Illumina alleges Drs. Talasaz and Eltoukhy breached “various employment contracts
`
`and company policies” by “incorporat[ing] Guardant” in 2011 while they were employed at
`
`Illumina. (Compl. ¶¶ 122, 125, 133, 136.) Illumina further alleges Dr. Eltoukhy breached these
`
`contracts by (1) “acting as an advisor, corporate agent, and fiduciary of Guardant while employed
`
`by Illumina” (id. ¶ 125); (2) transferring “Illumina confidential and propriety information outside
`
`of Illumina” (id. ¶ 125; see id. ¶¶ 40-49, 53-57); and (3) “contribut[ing] to the development of
`
`Guardant’s technology while an employee of Illumina” (id. ¶ 125). Illumina claims it “first
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 2190
`
`
`
`learned” of these alleged breaches in June 2019 and June 2020 (id. ¶¶ 128, 139)—even though
`
`Guardant’s incorporation in 2011 and Drs. Talasaz’s and Eltoukhy’s work for Guardant starting in
`
`2012 and 2013, respectively, was disclosed in SEC filings, press releases and other public sources.1
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`A complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’
`
`devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’”; a complaint “that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
`
`formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)). “[A] court
`
`need not credit a complaint’s ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions’ when deciding a motion to
`
`dismiss,” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997), nor is it obligated
`
`to credit allegations that are “self-evidently false.” Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 69 (3d Cir. 1996).
`
`A complaint is further subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) where a plaintiff lacks
`
`Article III standing. Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the allegations to support
`
`Article III standing, the Rule 12(b)(1) motion is considered a “facial attack” and courts “apply the
`
`same standard as on review of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” In re Horizon Healthcare
`
`Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 633 (3d Cir. 2017).
`
`Rule 12(b)(2) permits a party to challenge a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over
`
`him or her. “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing, with reasonable particularity, that
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Silver Decl., Exs. 1-4 (Guardant SEC Forms D filed in 2014, 2015, and 2016; each
`listing 2011 as Guardant’s “Year of Incorporation/Organization”); id., Ex. 5 (Aug. 26, 2014 press
`release identifying Dr. Eltoukhy the “Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer” of Guardant and
`describing Guardant’s accomplishments “[i]n just two years”); id., Ex. 6 (Sept. 19, 2013 press
`release describing Dr. Eltoukhy as the “Founder” of Guardant). The Court may take judicial notice
`of publicly available SEC filings and news articles. See In re Chemed Corp., Shareholder
`Derivative Litig., 2015 WL 9460118, at *1 n.2 (D. Del. Dec. 23, 2015) (SEC filings); Neuberger
`v. Gordon, 567 F. Supp. 2d 622, 630 (D. Del. 2008) (news article).
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 2191
`
`
`
`sufficient minimum contacts have occurred between the defendant and the forum to support
`
`jurisdiction.” inno360, Inc. v. Zakta, LLC, 50 F. Supp. 3d 587, 592 (D. Del. 2014). That showing
`
`requires both “a statutory basis for jurisdiction under the forum state’s long-arm statute” and that
`
`“the exercise of jurisdiction comports with the defendant’s right to due process.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Illumina Has Failed to Plead a Plausible Inventorship and Ownership Claim
`under 35 U.S.C. § 256
`
`Illumina claims ownership of thirty-five (35) Guardant patents2 and at least nine related
`
`patent applications with a two-part argument: it first argues Dr. Eltoukhy, Mr. Steemers, or both
`
`should be added as joint inventors, and then argues it owns the patents based on employment
`
`agreements it neither attached to its Complaint nor pleaded by their essential terms.
`
`Illumina’s ownership claims fail as a matter of law for three reasons. At the outset, its
`
`allegations are impermissibly vague and conclusory, especially given the number of Guardant
`
`patents Illumina seeks to co-opt. Illumina fails to identify any specific contribution it allegedly
`
`made to the vast majority of the 35 Guardant patents Illumina supposedly co-invented. And for
`
`the handful of remaining patents, Illumina’s alleged contributions are far too vague and conclusory
`
`to satisfy pleading requirements. Moreover, even if the allegations of co-inventorship were
`
`sufficient—which they are not—Illumina fails to adequately plead any plausible basis it has an
`
`ownership interest in the patents, since it fails to attach or adequately describe the alleged
`
`
`2 The first patent family (the “ʼ127 Patent Family”) includes 19 of the Patents at Issue: the ʼ127
`Patent (Ex. F), ʼ731 Patent (Ex. A), ʼ882 Patent (Ex. B), ʼ743 Patent (Ex. C), ʼ7063 Patent (Ex. R),
`ʼ995 Patent (Ex. G), ʼ678 Patent (Ex. H), ʼ808 Patent (Ex. I), ʼ810 Patent (Ex. J), ʼ556 Patent
`(Ex. K), ʼ364 Patent (Ex. N), ʼ916 Patent (Ex. O), ʼ663 Patent (Ex. Q), ʼ592 Patent (Ex. AA), ʼ171
`Patent (Ex. U), ʼ172 Patent (Ex. V), ʼ600 Patent (Ex. Z), ʼ376 Patent (Ex. CC), and ʼ899 Patent
`(Ex. DD). The second patent family (the “ʼ992 Patent Family”) includes nine of the Patents at
`Issue: the ʼ992 Patent (Ex. D), ʼ974 Patent (Ex. Y), ʼ152 Patent (Ex. T), ʼ086 Patent (Ex. M), ʼ085
`Patent (Ex. L), ʼ797 Patent (Ex. FF), ʼ880 Patent (Ex. S), ʼ265 Patent (Ex. BB), and ʼ796 Patent
`(Ex. EE). The third patent family (the “’366 Patent Family”) includes seven of the Patents at Issue:
`the ʼ366 Patent (Ex. E), ʼ139 Patent (Ex. W), ʼ1063 Patent (Ex. P), ʼ858 Patent (Ex. CC), ʼ221
`Patent (Ex. GG), ʼ306 Patent (Ex. HH), and ʼ307 Patent (Ex. II).
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00334-VAC Document 30 Filed 05/25/22 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 2192
`
`
`
`agreements that provide such an interest. Finally, Illumina’s ownership claim over the nine patent
`
`applications is facially deficient under settled law—including a case Illumina itself won—dictating
`
`that a party cannot pursue ownership of a yet-to-issue patent application in district court.
`
`1.
`
`Illumina Failed to Plausibly State a Claim for Inventorship
`
`Illumina cannot get over even the first hurdle of its two-part argument because it does not
`
`plausibly allege its personnel are co-inventors of the 35 Patents at Issue. Although a court must
`
`accept all “well-pleaded” factual allegations as true, a court need not credit “[t]hread-bare recitals
`
`of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Klang v. Pflueger,
`
`2014 WL 12587028, at *2 (N.D.