Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 1 of 378 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMANDS
`
`TRIAL BY JURY
`
`MONIB ZIRVI, M.D., Ph.D.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ILLUMINA, INC., THERMO FISHER
`
`SCIENTIFIC, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS
`
`HAUER & FELD LLP,
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS,
`
`
`
`
`
`RIP FINST, SEAN BOYLE,
`
`MATTHEW A. PEARSON,
`
`ANGELA VERRECCHIO,
`
`ROGER CHIN, and
`
`
`
`DOUGLAS LUMISH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`____________________________________)
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, Dr. MONIB ZIRVI, by and through its undersigned counsel hereby sues
`
`Defendants, Illumina, Inc., ThermoFisher Scientific, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
`
`Latham & Watkins, Rip Finst, Sean Boyle, Matthew A. Pearson, Angela Verrecchio, Roger Chin
`
`and Douglas Lumish, and states the following in support thereof:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Dr. MONIB ZIRVI (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an individual who has developed
`
`several trade secrets and intellectual property in the field of DNA diagnostics and DNA arrays,
`
`including the property at issue in this case and, at all times relevant, has been a practicing
`
`Page 1 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 378 PageID: 2
`
`
`
`physician-scientist with his principal location at 1 Diamond Hill Road, Berkeley Heights, NJ
`
`07922 in Union County.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Illumina, Inc., is a corporation of the State of Delaware with a principal
`
`place of business in the State of California.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant ThermoFisher Scientific is a corporation of the State of Delaware with
`
`a principal place of business in the State of California.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Attorneys Rip Finst and Sean Boyle of THERMO FISHER
`
`SCIENTIFIC INC., Matthew A. Pearson and Angela Verrecchio, of AKIN GUMP STRAUSS
`
`HAUER & FELD LLP, Roger Chin and Douglas Lumish of LATHAM & WATKINS are attorneys
`
`whose principal places of business are in the States of Pennsylvania and California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear Court I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1338(a): “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any
`
`Act of Congress relating to patents…. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for
`
`relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents ….”
`
`6.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear the remaining Counts II–IV under
`
`28 U.S. Code § 1367 (a) (2022) (“… in any civil action of which the district courts have original
`
`jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are
`
`so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
`
`case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”)
`
`7.
`
`Venue is governed by 28 U.S. Code § 1391(a) (2) proper in this case because the
`
`judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`
`occurred in this district, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is
`
`situated in this district.
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 3 of 378 PageID: 3
`
`8.
`
`The acts complained of herein were directed against Plaintiff who, at all times
`
`relevant, has been a practicing physician-scientist with his principal location at 1 Diamond Hill
`
`Road, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 in Union County.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`I.
`
`Factual Background
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff was a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Francis Barany at Cornell
`
`University Medical College (now known as Weill Cornell Medicine) from August 1994 to January
`
`1999.
`
`10.
`
`During that time, the Barany laboratory was developing new technology in DNA
`
`diagnostics, including new methods to detect cancer mutations to improve patient cancer care.
`
`11.
`
`After graduating from the laboratory, Plaintiff, on his own time, using his
`
`equipment, relying on his knowledge of computer programming, independently developed a data
`
`set of ZipCode sequences to enable mass production and manufacture of DNA computer chips
`
`known as DNA microarrays. The ZipCode sequences he invented were protectable as
`
`patentable subject matter and as a trade secret.
`
`12.
`
`ZipCode sequences are necessary to identify cancer mutations and other DNA
`
`applications, analogous to developing the operating system software for personal computers. (MS-
`
`DOS, iOS, and Windows)
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff’s intent was to incorporate the Zip Code Operating System (Zip Code
`
`Chemistry) into the manufacture of DNA microchips and receive royalties through the licensing
`
`of the invention.
`
`14.
`
`The Zip Code Operating System invented independently by Plaintiff, and other
`
`work done at the lab, was incorporated into Illumina patents, products, and SEC filings. The key
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 4 of 378 PageID: 4
`
`
`
`difference is that Illumina, including its founders, renamed the Zirvi-Barany Zip Code Operating
`
`System as “Tag Sequences”, “Illumacodes”, “Illumicodes”, or other misleading names. All the
`
`while, Illumina’s source code of their software identified them as what the truly were, Plaintiff’s
`
`“ZipCodes.”
`
`15.
`
`Illumina’s illicit taking became the subject matter of multiple litigations between
`
`Cornell University, Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., Life Technologies Corporation, and
`
`Applied Biosystems, LLC versus Illumina.
`
`16.
`
`Throughout the litigation the Plaintiff was in communication with, and advised
`
`extensively by Attorneys for Cornell University, Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., PE Applied
`
`Biosystems, LLC, Life Technologies Corporation, and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., who
`
`represented to the Plaintiff that they were his counsel as well.
`
`17.
`
`At various points throughout the Cornell litigation, the Attorneys representing the
`
`Plaintiff included, Rip Finst and Sean Boyle of THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC., Matthew
`
`A. Pearson and Angela Verrecchio, of AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Roger
`
`Chin and Douglas Lumish of LATHAM & WATKINS. (Dr. Zirvi did not have direct contact
`
`with non-party attorneys Dianne B. Elderkin, Rachel J. Elsby, and Jason E. Weil of AKIN GUMP
`
`STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP).
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff’s Attorneys advised him that his interests were aligned with Cornell
`
`University, Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., PE Applied Biosystems, LLC, Life Technologies
`
`Corporation, and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., and that these attorneys represented his interests.
`
`19.
`
`The Attorneys advised Plaintiff to not prepare for his deposition, to not review any
`
`documents, including his own patent filings, and not research facts related to Illumina, its founders,
`
`employees, and patent filings.
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 5 of 378 PageID: 5
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Instead, the Attorneys instructed and advised Plaintiff to answer questions with “I
`
`don’t know”, and “I don’t remember”, all explained to him as the best way to benefit Cornell and
`
`his rights against Illumina’s illicit taking.
`
`21.
`
`Attorneys for the Plaintiff withheld from Plaintiff that ThermoFisher was secretly
`
`collaborating with Illumina to develop “Ampliseq for Illumina” during the entire time they were
`
`representing Plaintiff – a knowingly deliberate conflict of interest. The secret collaboration, which
`
`upon information and belief started at least three years prior, was publicly admitted to having
`
`occurred at least a year prior to January 30th, 2018, while the Cornell v. Illumina (1:10-cv-00433-
`
`LPS) case was still active. See,
`
`this Complaint’s Exhibits 1 and 2. (respectively,
`
`Illumina_SEC_8k_Ampliseq_for_Illumina_01_30_2018_v02Hi copy 2 and see Exhibit 13 of
`
`Zirvi v US NIH et al. Case 3:20-cv-07648-MAS-DEA: Bringing together two leaders:
`
`AmpliSeqTM for Illumina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWPaZX1TDa4).
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff subsequently learned that other inventors from Patent application WO
`
`97/31256 were instructed to do the same.
`
`23.
`
`Attorneys for
`
`the Plaintiff repeatedly requested via phone calls, video
`
`teleconferences, and emails for Plaintiff to submit his expert analysis and findings that would
`
`strengthen the Cornell v Illumina (1:10-cv-00433-LPS) case, and Plaintiff spent hundreds of hours
`
`preparing such confidential analysis over a two-year period.
`
`24.
`
`Attorneys for ThermoFisher informed Plaintiff at the end of January 2017-
`
`beginning of February 2017 that they were unhappy with the performance of Akin Gump, and thus
`
`were immediately bringing in Roger Chin and Doug Lumish of Latham & Watkins to take over
`
`the Cornell v Illumina case (1:10-cv-00433-LPS). None of these Attorneys informed Plaintiff of
`
`Page 5 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 6 of 378 PageID: 6
`
`
`
`their conflict of interest in they were simultaneously involved in a parallel and related case of
`
`Illumina v Life Technologies Corp (Thermo Fisher) Case 3:11-cv-03022-JAH-DHB.
`
`25.
`
`Between January 2017 and April 2017, Plaintiff sent Attorneys at ThermoFisher,
`
`Latham & Watkins and Akin Gump numerous emails containing bullet-proof evidence of fraud by
`
`Illumina which would have proven the claims by Cornell, yet such evidence was kept from the
`
`court in the Cornell v Illumina case (1:10-cv-00433-LPS). Plaintiff requested to file a declaration
`
`to introduce this evidence to the court, yet inexplicably, Attorneys denied this request. (See Exhibit
`
`12 for Draft of Declaration written by Plaintiff and emailed about to Defendants including Rip
`
`Finst, Matthew Pearson, Roger Chin and Douglas Lumish shortly prior to the signing of the
`
`settlement agreement in Cornell v Illumina. Plaintiff specifically requested for their help to edit
`
`and submit this to the US District Court in Delaware as a Third Party with an interest.)
`
`26.
`
`Unbeknownst to Plaintiff or Cornell at the time, Cornell v Illumina (1:10-cv-00433-
`
`LPS) was fraudulently settled by Illumina and ThermoFisher, simultaneously with several other
`
`lawsuits involving Illumina and ThermoFisher, in April 2017. Tellingly, Attorneys Roger Chin
`
`and Doug Lumish were working on the other cases involving Illumina and ThermoFisher but failed
`
`to disclose their obvious conflict of interest to either Plaintiff or Cornell. The settlements, while
`
`benefiting Illumina and ThermoFisher, completely undermined the rights of the Plaintiff.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff discovered through a review of public SEC filings that Illumina had filed
`
`a First Amendment Agreement to raise funds for many years. In this document, the definition of
`
`“Tag Sequences” was redacted. When asked, Matthew Pearson said he knew about the First
`
`Amendment Agreement, and stated it had nothing to do with the inventors, including Plaintiff, as
`
`well as their rights as inventors under the Cornell v. Illumina suit. Matthew Pearson refused to
`
`share any details of the First Amendment Agreement, requiring Plaintiff to obtain a copy of the
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 7 of 378 PageID: 7
`
`
`
`unredacted First Amendment Agreement through a FOIA request to the SEC, which was received
`
`by Plaintiff on May 17, 2017 (Exhibit 3).
`
`28.
`
`In the redacted document, everything passed the words “ ‘Tag Sequence’ means ”
`
`was redacted. In the unredacted document, it continues as follows: “Tag Sequence” means a set
`
`of oligonucleotide probes, developed pursuant to the Original Agreement or this First Amendment,
`
`which act independently of any target-sequence-specific analytical chemical reactions to allow the
`
`physical addressing of the products of a chemical reaction to locations on a solid support, such as
`
`the "addressable array-specific portion” of the oligonucleotide probes and their complements
`
`described in International Patent Application No. W097/31256 and that are designed for use in the
`
`Collaboration Product. The Parties will agree on the selection of Tag Sequences to be used in the
`
`Collaboration Product, subject to the approval of the Joint Steering Committee.
`
`29.
`
`International Patent Application No. W097/31256 is an invention that was
`
`submitted before Illumina even existed, with Dr. Zirvi as a coinventor. In the First Amendment
`
`Agreement, it states: “The Parties will share responsibility for defining and developing Tag
`
`Sequences for the Collaboration Product which will attempt to avoid third party intellectual
`
`property rights or other encumbrances.” In other words, this was collusion by Illumina and
`
`ThermoFisher to apparently defraud third parties, such as Cornell and the Plaintiff. Dr. Zirvi
`
`informed Cornell of the findings in the unredacted First Amendment Agreement.
`
`30.
`
`Cornell, when it became aware of the apparent fraud and collusion between these
`
`two companies, filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to overturn this settlement agreement, attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 4.
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 8 of 378 PageID: 8
`
`
`
`31.
`
`This motion was vigorously opposed by both Illumina and ThermoFisher, even
`
`though ThermoFisher was a Plaintiff allegedly representing Cornell’s and Plaintiff’s interests in
`
`the case against Illumina.
`
`32.
`
`Unbeknownst to Plaintiff or Cornell at the time, Illumina and ThermoFisher were
`
`secretly working together to develop the “Ampliseq for Illumina” product line during the Cornell
`
`v Illumina case. (See Exhibits 1 and 2).
`
`33.
`
`Illumina and ThermoFisher’s joint venture in the “Ampliseq for Illumina” product
`
`line strengthened their duopoly in the DNA sequencing and DNA microarrays market.
`
`34.
`
`Illumina has used its monopoly position in DNA sequencing to purchase Grail and
`
`claim that they have developed a “multi-cancer early detection” (MCED) test claiming to find 50
`
`different cancers at early stages, without any evidence of long-term prospective population base
`
`clinical trial to prove clinical utility for this test.
`
`35.
`
`Despite this fact, Illumina / Grail is attempting to unduly influence lawmakers to
`
`pass bills (117 HR 1947, To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare
`
`coverage of multi-cancer early detection screening tests; 117 S 1873, To amend title XVIII of the
`
`Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage of multi-cancer early detection screening
`
`tests.) requiring Medicare to reimburse for this unproven test, misspending up to $60B in taxpayer
`
`funds per year.
`
`36. Moreover, under the guise of this “testing” to detect “early cancer” patients would
`
`unwittingly be providing all their private DNA information, which Illumina could resell for their
`
`own personal profit regardless of the end user’s purpose.
`
`37.
`
`At the foundation of the DNA analysis market is Plaintiff’s Zip Code Operating
`
`System that allows samples to be processed and reliable results obtained.
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 9 of 378 PageID: 9
`
`
`
`38.
`
`The Plaintiff has not been recognized as an inventor on any of Illumina’s patents
`
`using the Zip Code Operating System; has not received royalties from Illumina’s use of Plaintiff’s
`
`Zip Code Operating System in their software and products Others have noted: “To paraphrase
`
`William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, something is rotten in the state of Illumina.”1
`
`39.
`
`Illumina and its founders and employees have incorporated the ZipCode Operating
`
`System and utilized Plaintiffs’ ZipCode sequences and designs to manufacture and commercialize
`
`numerous products. Illumina knowingly applied for these patents without including Plaintiff as an
`
`inventor and the patent claims would not have been issued had it not been for Illumina’s
`
`commercial success using ZipCode sequences and the ZipCode Operating System to determine
`
`the location of DNA sequences in the Sentrix arrays, GoldenGate assays and Infinium arrays as
`
`demonstrated by the software used to analyze .dmap files associated with these products. This
`
`software specifically calls the DNA sequences, used by Illumina in its products, ZipCode (and not
`
`by any other name or pseudonym).
`
`40.
`
`The patents were issued by the USPTO without Plaintiff as a named inventor solely
`
`because Illumina knowingly and fraudulently withheld this usurpation of intellectual property
`
`rights from the USPTO patent examiners (See First Amendment Agreement, Exhibit 3) by
`
`renaming ZipCode sequences as Addresses, DBL, decoders and adaptors as well as other
`
`pseudonym and not referencing Plaintiffs 465 and 4633 ZipCode sets which Kevin Gunderson and
`
`Mark Chee and Ilumina purloined as Illumacodes 1-16. (See Probes and Decoder Oligonucleotides
`
`patent application, in Expert analysis as filed in Zirvi v. US NIH et al. (Case 3:20-cv-07648-MAS-
`
`DEA) as Exhibit 17, see Exhibit 5). Illumina’s “Tag Sequences” and Illumicodes and Illumacodes
`
`and DBLs and adaptors are all in fact derivatives of Plaintiff’s ZipCode sequences and ZipCode
`
`
`1 Open letter to Shareholders of Illumina, Inc., March 13th, 2023, Carl Icahn:
`(https://carlicahn.com/open-letter-to-shareholders-of-illumina-inc/)
`
`Page 9 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 10 of 378 PageID: 10
`
`
`
`Operating System. As others have noted: “Yet these individuals suffer no consequences or
`
`remorse. The members of Illumina’s management team and board of directors collectively own
`
`less than 0.1% of the company’s stock yet they feel entitled to take these reckless actions with our
`
`money.”2
`
`41.
`
`During the Cornell v. Illumina case, Attorneys Roger Chin, Doug Lumish, and Rip
`
`Finst presented “legal advice” that included knowingly false statements and deliberate omissions
`
`in two PowerPoint presentations (Exhibits 6 and 7). Tellingly, the First Amendment Agreement
`
`was never mentioned, let alone discussed in these presentations, thus allowing for a false and
`
`misleading legal analysis, including the misleading definition of ZipCodes.
`
`42.
`
`At the end of the Cornell v. Illumina case, Plaintiff was informed by Attorney Roger
`
`Chin that the protection of the purloined 16 Zip Code sequences was a trade-secret case and that
`
`Attorney Matthew Pearson had investigated bringing the action as a trade-secret case. See the
`
`email from Roger Chin addressed to Plaintiff and inventors (Exhibit 8).
`
`43.
`
`Based on Roger Chin’s legal advice, Plaintiff Zirvi filed Zirvi v. Flatley (Case 1:18-
`
`cv-07003-JGK). As part of Zirvi v. US NIH et al. (Case 3:20-cv-07648-MAS-DEA) case, Expert
`
`Analysis revealed numerous additional instances of apparent fraud (see Exhibit 5), including, but
`
`not limited to the dependence of numerous Illumina patent filings and Illumina products on Zip
`
`Code sequences (i.e. Sentrix, Infinium Arrays.). These findings were subverted by Attorneys
`
`Matthew Pearson, Roger Chin, Doug Lumish, and Rip Finst. As others have noted: “In response
`
`to our letter, Illumina’s board did what boards do best. They used our money – and yours – to
`
`defend themselves against their own shareholders by hiring highly-paid bankers, lawyers and PR
`
`firms. In the process, they issued a press release and spoke to sell-side analysts to disseminate the
`
`2 Id.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 11 of 378 PageID: 11
`
`
`
`incumbent board’s message. They make several points which are either misleading, improbable or
`
`are clear double speak.”3
`
`44.
`
`At the conclusion of Zirvi v. Flatley legal analysis of “storm warnings” of fraud and
`
`IP theft by Illumina should have commenced by the ThermoFisher Attorneys, who at the time were
`
`representing Cornell and all the inventors at the beginning of Cornell v. Illumina.
`
`45.
`
`The patents that Illumina filed that absolutely depend on ZipCodes to function
`
`include but are not limited to the following:
`
`a.
`
`6355431 (the '5431 patent); Detection of nucleic acid amplification
`
`reactions using bead arrays Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Gunderson; Kevin
`
`(Encinitas, CA)
`
`b.
`
`6620584 (the '0584 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark (Del Mar, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`c.
`
`6770441 (the '0441 patent); Array compositions and methods of making
`
`same Dickinson; Todd (San Diego, CA), Coblentz; Kenneth D. (Del Mar, CA),
`
`Carlson; Edward (Oceanside, CA)
`
`d.
`
`6812005 (the '2005 patent); Nucleic acid detection methods using universal
`
`priming Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Auger; Steven R. (Norwell, MA),
`
`Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA)
`
`e.
`
`6858394 (the '8394 patent); Composite arrays utilizing microspheres Fan;
`
`Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S.
`
`(Del Mar, CA)
`
`f.
`
`6890741 (the '0741 patent); Multiplexed detection of analytes Fan; Jian-
`
`Bing (San Diego, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S. (Del
`
`Mar, CA)
`
`
`3 Icahn Responds to IIlumina’s Obfuscations; March 15th, 2023, Carl Icahn:
`(https://carlicahn.com/icahn-responds-to-illuminas-obfuscations/)
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 12 of 378 PageID: 12
`
`
`
`g.
`
`6913884 (the '3884 patent); Compositions and methods for repetitive use
`
`of genomic DNA
`
`Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Czarnik; Anthony W. (San
`
`Diego, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA)
`
`h.
`
`7033754 (the '3754 patent); Decoding of array sensors with microspheres
`
`
`
`Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA),
`
`Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA)
`
`i.
`
`7060431 (the '0431 patent); Method of making and decoding of array
`
`sensors with microspheres Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R.
`
`(Encinitas, CA), Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`j.
`
`7166431 (the '6431 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`k.
`
`7226734 (the '6734 patent); Multiplex decoding of array sensors with
`
`microspheres Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`l.
`
`7361488 (the '1488 patent); Nucleic acid detection methods using universal
`
`priming Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`m.
`
`7455971 (the '5971 patent); Multiplex decoding of array sensors with
`
`microspheres Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`n.
`
`7510841 (the '0841 patent); Methods of making and using composite arrays
`
`for the detection of a plurality of target analytes Stuelpnagel; John (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Chee; Mark (Del Mar, CA), Auger; Steven (Norwell, MA)
`
`o.
`
`7563576 (the '3576 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`p.
`
`7582420 (the '2420 patent); Multiplex nucleic acid reactions Shen; Mun-Jui
`
`Richard (Poway, CA), Oliphant; Arnold (Poway, CA), Butler; Scott L. (San Diego,
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 13 of 378 PageID: 13
`
`
`
`CA), Stuelpnagel; John E. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Kuhn;
`
`Kenneth M. (San Diego, CA), Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`q.
`
`7611869 (the '1869 patent); Multiplexed methylation detection methods
`
`Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`r.
`
`7612020 (the '2020 patent); Composite arrays utilizing microspheres with a
`
`hybridization chamber Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA), Chee; Mark S (Del Mar,
`
`CA)
`
`s.
`
`7670810 (the '0810 patent); Methods and compositions for whole genome
`
`amplification and genotyping
`
`Shen; Mun-Jui Richard
`
`(Poway, CA),
`
`Oliphant; Arnold (Poway, CA), Butler; Scott L. (San Diego, CA), Stuelpnagel;
`
`John E. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Kuhn; Kenneth M. (San
`
`Diego, CA), Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`t.
`
`7776531 (the '6531 patent); Compositions and methods for stabilizing
`
`surface bound probes Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`u.
`
`7803537 (the '3537 patent); Parallel genotyping of multiple patient samples
`
`Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA), Chee; Mark S (Del Mar, CA)
`
`v.
`
`7899626 (the '9626 patent); System and method of measuring methylation
`
`of nucleic acidsi
`
`Kruglyak; Semyon (San Diego, CA), Bibikova; Marina (San
`
`Diego, CA), Chudin; Eugene (Kirkland, WA)
`
`w.
`
`7901897 (the '1897 patent); Methods of making arrays Kain; Robert (San
`
`Diego, CA)
`
`x.
`
`7914988 (the '4988 patent); Gene expression profiles to predict relapse of
`
`prostate cancer Chudin; Eugene (Kirkland, WA), Lozach; Jean (San Diego, CA),
`
`Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA), Bibikova; Marina (San Diego, CA)
`
`y.
`
`7955794 (the '5794 patent); Multiplex nucleic acid reactions Shen; Min-Jui
`
`Richard (San Diego, CA), Oliphant; Arnold (Poway, CA), Butler; Scott L. (San
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 14 of 378 PageID: 14
`
`
`
`Diego, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA),
`
`Kuhn; Kenneth M. (San Diego, CA), Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`z.
`
`7960119 (the '0119 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`aa.
`
`8003354 (the '3354 patent); Multiplex nucleic acid reactions Oliphant;
`
`Arnold (Poway, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S. (Del
`
`Mar, CA), Butler; Scott L. (San Diego, CA), Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA),
`
`Shen; Min-Jui Richard (Poway, CA)
`
`bb.
`
`8076063 (the '6063 patent); Multiplexed methylation detection methods
`
`Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`cc.
`
`8080380 (the '0380 patent); Use of microfluidic systems in the detection of
`
`target analytes using microsphere arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Dickinson; Todd A. (San Diego, CA), Gunderson; Kevin (Encinitas, CA), O'Neil;
`
`Don (San Juan Capistrano, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA)
`
`dd.
`
`8110363 (the '0363 patent); Expression profiles to predict relapse of
`
`prostate cancer Chudin; Eugene (Kirkland, WA), Lozach; Jean (San Diego, CA),
`
`Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA), Bibikova; Marina (San Diego, CA)
`
`ee.
`
`8150626 (the '0626 patent); Methods and compositions for diagnosing lung
`
`cancer with specific DNA methylation patterns Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA),
`
`Bibikova; Marina (San Diego, CA)
`
`ff.
`
`8150627 (the '0627 patent); Methods and compositions for diagnosing lung
`
`cancer with specific DNA methylation patterns Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA),
`
`Bibikova; Marina (San Diego, CA)
`
`gg.
`
`8206917 (the '6917 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`hh.
`
`8288103 (the '8103 patent); Multiplex nucleic acid reactions Oliphant;
`
`Arnold (Sunnyvale, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S.
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 15 of 378 PageID: 15
`
`
`
`(Encinitas, CA), Butler; Scott L. (Sandwich, GB), Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego,
`
`CA), Shen; Min-Jui Richard (Poway, CA)
`
`ii.
`
`8440407 (the '0407 patent); Gene expression profiles to predict relapse of
`
`prostate cancer Chudin; Eugene (Kirkland, WA), Lozach; Jean (San Diego, CA),
`
`Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego, CA), Bibikova; Marina (San Diego, CA)
`
`jj.
`
`8460865 (the '0865 patent); Multiplex decoding of array sensors with
`
`microspheres Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`kk.
`
`8481268 (the '1268 patent); Use of microfluidic systems in the detection of
`
`target analytes using microsphere arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Dickinson; Todd A. (San Diego, CA), Gunderson; Kevin (Encinitas, CA), O'Neil;
`
`Don (San Juan Capistrano, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA)
`
`ll.
`
`8486625 (the '6625 patent); Detection of nucleic acid reactions on bead
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`mm. 8541207 (the '1207 patent); Preservation of information related to genomic
`
`DNA methylation Gormley; Niall Anthony (Nr. Saffron Walden, GB), Smith;
`
`Geoffrey Paul (Nr Saffron Walden, GB), Bentley; David (Nr Saffron Walden,
`
`GB), Rigatti; Roberto (Nr Saffron Walden, GB), Luo; Shujun (Hayward, CA)
`
`nn.
`
`8563246 (the '3246 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`oo.
`
`8628952 (the '8952 patent); Array kits and processing systems Lebl; Michal
`
`(San Diego, CA), Perbost; Michel (San Diego, CA), DeRosier; Chad F. (San
`
`Diego, CA), Nibbe; Mark J. (San Diego, CA), Burgett; Steve R. (San Diego, CA),
`
`Heiner; David L. (San Diego, CA)
`
`pp.
`
`8741630 (the '1630 patent); Methods of detecting targets on an array
`
`Dickinson; Todd (San Diego, CA), Coblentz; Kenneth D. (San Diego, CA),
`
`Carlson; Edward (San Diego, CA)
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 16 of 378 PageID: 16
`
`
`
`qq.
`
`8795967 (the '5967 patent); Multiplex decoding of array sensors with
`
`microspheres Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`rr.
`
`8883424 (the '3424 patent); Use of microfluidic systems in the detection of
`
`target analytes using microsphere arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Dickinson; Todd A. (San Diego, CA), Gunderson; Kevin (Encinitas, CA), O'Neil;
`
`Don (San Juan Capistrano, CA)
`
`ss.
`
`8895268 (the '5268 patent); Preservation of information related to genomic
`
`DNA methylation Kester; Henri A. (San Diego, CA)
`
`tt.
`
`8906626 (the '6626 patent); Multiplex nucleic acid reactions Oliphant;
`
`Arnold (Sunnyvale, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Santa Barbara, CA), Chee; Mark
`
`S. (Encinitas, CA), Butler; Scott L. (Sandwich, GB), Fan; Jian-Bing (San Diego,
`
`CA), Shen; Min-Jui Richard (Poway, CA)
`
`uu.
`
`9045796 (the '5796 patent); Methods and compositions for whole genome
`
`amplification and genotyping
`
`Gunderson; Kevin
`
`(Encinitas, CA),
`
`Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA), Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Fan; Jian-
`
`Bing (San Diego, CA)
`
`vv.
`
`9163283 (the '3283 patent); Combinatorial decoding of random nucleic acid
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Walt; David R. (Lexington, MA)
`
`ww. 9279148 (the '9148 patent); Detection of nucleic acid reactions on bead
`
`arrays Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`xx.
`
`9289766 (the '9766 patent); Use of microfluidic systems in the detection of
`
`target analytes using microsphere arrays Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Dickinson; Todd A. (San Diego, CA), Gunderson; Kevin (Encinitas, CA), O'Neil;
`
`Don (San Juan Capistrano, CA)
`
`Page 16 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA Document 1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 17 of 378 PageID: 17
`
`
`
`yy.
`
`9399795 (the '9795 patent); Multiplex decoding of array sensors with
`
`microspheres Chee; Mark S. (Del Mar, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Encinitas, CA),
`
`Czarnik; Anthony W. (San Diego, CA)
`
`zz.
`
`9441267 (the '1267 patent); Detection of nucleic acid reactions on bead
`
`arrays Oliphant; Arnold (Sunnyvale, CA), Stuelpnagel; John R. (Santa Barbara,
`
`CA), Chee; Mark S. (Encinitas, CA), Butler; Scott L. (Sandwich, GB), Fan; Jian-
`
`Bing (San Diego, CA), Shen; Min-Jui Richard (Poway, CA).
`
`46.
`
`But for the intentional acts and negligence of the attorneys representing Plaintiff in
`
`the Cornell case the Plaintiff would have been able to enforce his intellectual property rights
`
`against Illumina.
`
`47.
`
`But for the conspiring of all Defendants, Plaintiff Zirvi would have received the
`
`recognition and royalties on a series of patents (See: Czarnik v. Illumina, Case 1:05-cv-00400-
`
`JJF).
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff asserts that the failure to name Plaintiff as an inventor on the patents filed
`
`by the assignee has caused significant reputational harm. Plaintiff’s contributions to the
`
`development of the technology are significant and cannot be denied. The claimant has been
`
`acknowledged as a key contributor to the development of the technology. (See Exhibit 9 Affidavit
`
`of Dr. Francis Barany) However, the failure