Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 39 PageID: 1680
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`____________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
`TO ILLUMINA’S MOTION TO DISMISS ECF NO. 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 39 PageID: 1681
`
`Table of Contents
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 5
`
`THE CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED ............................................................................................................ 9
`II.
`A. Claims against Illumina are not barred by Res Judicata. ........................................................................... 9
`
`B. Claims against Illumina are not time-barred. ............................................................................................ 17
`i.
`Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar Civil Conspiracy. ........................................................................ 17
`
`ii. Doctrine of Laches Does Not Bar Section 256 Claim. ........................................................................... 20
`COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM AGAINST ILLUMINA .................................................................... 24
`
`III.
`
`A. The Complaint States a Claim Under Section 256 ..................................................................................... 25
`B. Plaintiff has Standing to Bring a Section 256 Claim ................................................................................. 29
`
`C. Plaintiff Invented Specific ZipCode Technology and ................................................................................ 30
`Has A Viable Inventorship Claim ........................................................................................................................ 30
`
`D. The Complaint does State a Civil Conspiracy Claim ................................................................................ 32
`IV.
`ILLUMINA’S MOTION TO STRIKE SHOULD BE DENIED .............................................................. 33
`
`
`
`Cases
`Affymetrix, Inc. and Gregory L. Kirk, v. Illumina, INC., Case No. 3:11-cv-00184-BBC, March
`14, 2011 ..................................................................................................................................... 29
`Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 481 (D. Del. 2006)......................................... 29
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) ................................................................................. 24
`Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1032-33 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............... 20
`Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Nat. Ass’n, 601 F.3d 212, 218–22 (3d Cir. 2010) .............................. 11
`Bd. of Educ., Asbury Park v. Hoek, 38 N.J. 213, 238 (1962) ....................................................... 33
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ................................................................. 24
`Chou v. Univ. of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................... 22
`Chou v. University of Chicago, 254 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................. 28
`Clark v. Augustine, 62 N.J. Eq. 689, 694 (Ch. 1902) ................................................................... 18
`Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., 1:19-cv-00970, (D. Del. May 06, 2022) .................. 29
`Cornell Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., C. A. No. 10-433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. June 25, 2013) .............. 6, 9
`Cornell Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 10-433-LPS-MPT, 2018 WL 1512051 (D. Del. Mar. 27,
`2018) .......................................................................................................................................... 29
`Crumlish v. Price, 266 A.2d 182, 183–84 (Del. 1970) ................................................................. 11
`Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Del. 2006) ..................................................... 29
`Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., Docket No. GIC763972 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2002) ................................... 29
`E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 921 F.2d 489, 493 (3d Cir. 1990) .................................................... 9
`Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23581, at *24 (W.D.
`Wash. Feb. 26, 2015) ................................................................................................................. 11
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................... 28
`Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., 584 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009) ......................................................... 12
`Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Lopez-Freytes, 522 F.3d 136 (1st Cir. 2008) ....................................... 19
`Estate of Moore v. Roman, Civ. No. 18-16345 (RBK) (KMW) (D.N.J. Sep. 27, 2019) ................ 9
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................... 25
`Feuss v. Enica Eng’g, PLLC No. 20-02034, 2021 WL 1153146 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2021) ............ 26
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 3 of 39 PageID: 1682
`
`First Aviation Servs. v. NetJets, Inc., No. 13-2442 (KM)(MAH), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92115,
`at *8 (D.N.J. July 8, 2014) ......................................................................................................... 33
`Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................................... 25
`Freeman v. Conover, 95 N.J.L. 89 (E. A. 1920) ........................................................................... 18
`Garlanger v. Verbeke, 223 F. Supp. 2d 596, 609 (D.N.J. 2002) .................................................. 34
`Holloway v. Appelget, 55 N.J. Eq. 583, 585 (E. A. 1897) ............................................................ 18
`Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 25
`Howard v. West Jersey, etc., R.R. Co., 102 N.J. Eq. 517, 521 (Ch. 1928) ................................... 18
`Kamdem-Ouaffo v. PepsiCo Inc., 657 F. App’x 949 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................... 27
`King Transcription Servs., LLC v. Phx. Transcription, LLC, No. A-5034-15T1, at *37 (App. Div.
`Mar. 19, 2019) ........................................................................................................................... 33
`Kretz v. Hernandez, No. 12-3152, 2016 WL 6471444, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2016) .................. 17
`Lamb v.Martin, 43 N.J. Eq. 34 (Ch. 1887) ................................................................................... 18
`Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., 569 F.3d 1319, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................... 22
`Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., 569 F.3d 1319, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................... 28
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Enjay Chem. Co., 316 A.2d 219, 223 (Del. 1974) .................................. 11
`Lincoln v. Judd, 49 N.J. Eq. 387 (Ch. 1892)................................................................................. 18
`Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 275 n.2 (N.J. 1973) ......................................................................... 18
`Louis Kamm, Inc. v. Flink, 113 N.J.L. 582, 592 (1934) ............................................................... 33
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562-63 (1992) ...................................................... 29
`Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 24
`Mark Dutch Co 1 B.V. v. Zeta Interactive Corp., 411 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Del. 2019), aff’d, No.
`19-3845, 2021 WL ..................................................................................................................... 28
`Middlesex Concrete Prods. & Excavating Corp. v. The Carteret Indus. Ass'n, 37 N.J. 507 (1962)
` ................................................................................................................................................... 33
`Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) ............................................................................. 12
`Noel v. Teffeau, 116 N.J. Eq. 446 (Ch. 1934). .............................................................................. 18
`Partrick v. Groves, 115 N.J. Eq. 208, 211 (E. A. 1933) ............................................................... 18
`Petrosino v. Ventrice, No. A-0020-13T1, at *17-18 (App. Div. Aug. 27, 2015) ......................... 32
`Pro Mktg. Sales, Inc. v. Secturion Sys., Inc., No. 19-cv-00113, 2020 WL 5912351 (D. Utah Oct.
`6, 2020) ...................................................................................................................................... 28
`Red Carpet Studios v. Midwest Trading Grp., Inc., No. 1:12-cv-501, 2016 WL 5661681 (S.D.
`Ohio Sept. 30, 2016) .................................................................................................................. 22
`Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 555 (2000) .................................................................................. 19
`SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC , 137 S. Ct. 954, 960, 197
`L.Ed.2d 292 (2017) .................................................................................................................... 20
`Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cymaticolor Corp., 106 F.R.D. 545, 547 (S.D.N.Y.
`1985) .......................................................................................................................................... 35
`Severino v. Middlesex Cnty., Civil Action No. 14-6919 (MAS) (LHG), 2-3 (D.N.J. Jul. 1, 2015)
` ................................................................................................................................................... 24
`Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC, 803 F.3d 659, 663 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................ 22, 26
`Stark v Advanced Magnetics, 119 F.3d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................... 20
`State of Ohio ex rel. Susan Boggs, et al. v. City of Cleveland, 655 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2011) ...... 17
`Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) .............................................................. 33
`Syntrix Biosystems, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. C10-5870 BHS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157911, at
`*14 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2013) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 4 of 39 PageID: 1683
`
`Syntrix Biosystems, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. C10-5870 BHS, 2013 WL 12135379 (W.D. Wash.
`Nov. 4, 2013) ............................................................................................................................. 29
`The Trustees of Columbia University and QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, v. Illumina, Inc., (D. Del. No.
`19-1681-CFC, July 15, 2021 ..................................................................................................... 29
`Trovan Ltd. v. Sokymat SA, Irori, 299 F.3d 1292, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................... 29
`United States v. Athlone Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 984 (3d Cir. 1984) ........................................ 9
`United States v. Suntar Roofing, Inc., 897 F.2d 469 (10th Cir. 1990) .......................................... 20
`Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia SPA, 944 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)....... 22
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................. 35
`Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine, 395 U.S. 100 (1969) ........................................................................... 22
`Zirvi v. Flatley, 1:18- civ-07003-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020) ................................................... 7
`Zirvi v. United States Nat'l Inst. of Health, Civ. 20-7648 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2022) ......................... 5
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 256 ......................................................................................................................... 5, 11
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 9
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1 .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ...................................................................................................................... 33
`Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Treatises
`Rest. 3d Agency, §2.03 (2006) ...................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 5 of 39 PageID: 1684
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
`
`Plaintiff, Dr. Zirvi, brings suit against Movant, Illumina, Inc., in Count I pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 256 and Count IV for Civil Conspiracy under New Jersey state law. In Count I Dr. Zirvi
`
`alleges that Illumina failed to name him as an inventor on several Illumina patents. (Compl. ¶ 45)
`
`In Count IV Dr. Zirvi alleges that Illumina, Thermo Fisher and Defendant Attorneys entered into
`
`an agreement to undermine Dr. Zirvi’s intellectual property rights, where they took overt acts
`
`during several cases, in furtherance of the illicit agreement, and as a result Dr, Zirvi suffered
`
`economic damages.
`
`As to Count I, Dr. Zirvi claim against Illumina are based on the following allegations.
`
`• Dr. Zirvi developed ZipCode sequences on his own time relying on his knowledge
`
`of computer programming. (Compl. ¶ 11)
`
`• Dr. Zirvi’s exact ZipCode sequences inexplicably showed up in an Illumina Patent
`
`application. (Compl. ¶ 40)
`
`• The ZipCode sequence technology is required for the bead microarrays and other
`
`microarrays to work in the 52 issued Illumina patents that Plaintiff seeks to be
`
`added as a named co-inventor. (Compl. Count I, pg. 22)
`
`• David Walt, co-founder of Illumina, who claims to be the inventor of bead
`
`microarrays admitted his invention would not work without ZipCode sequences.1
`
`• David Walt further, admitted he did not invent ZipCodes. See also, Zirvi v. NIH2
`
`
`1 Zirvi v. United States Nat'l Inst. of Health, Civ. 20-7648 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2022) Exhibit 17, see
`also, Compl. Exhibit 5, Slide No. 12.
`2 Zirvi v. United States Nat'l Inst. of Health, Civ. 20-7648 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2022) Exhibit 17, see
`also, Compl. Exhibit 5, Slide No. 13.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 6 of 39 PageID: 1685
`
`As to Count IV, Dr. Zirvi’s Civil Conspiracy claim against Illumina is based on the following
`
`allegations.
`
`• Unbeknownst to Dr. Zirvi, during Cornell v. Illumina,3 Defendants made an
`
`agreement to conspire with one another and begin working together on an
`
`advantageous business relationship at the expense of Dr. Zirvi and his intellectual
`
`property pertaining to ZipCode technology.
`
`• Prior to the agreement to conspire, Thermo Fisher and the Defendant Attorneys
`
`advised Dr. Zirvi that his interests were being protected in the Cornell v. Illumina
`
`case.
`
`• The co-conspirators took overt action in Cornell v. Illumina including:
`
`o Failing to advise Dr. Zirvi of a conflict of interest developed when Thermo
`
`Fisher and Illumina began working on a secret side business deal;
`
`o Allowing Dr. Zirvi to believe that his interests were being protected even
`
`after a conflict of interest developed;
`
`o Failing to advise Dr. Zirvi that he should seek separate counsel after a
`
`conflict of interest developed;
`
`o Failing to advise Dr. Zirvi that he should seek separate counsel after a
`
`specific claim regarding ZipCode technology was brought to Thermo Fisher
`
`and Defendant Attorney’s attention;
`
`o Providing improper advice to Dr. Zirvi regarding his claim against Illumina
`
`regarding his ZipCode technology claim against Illumina;
`
`
`3 Cornell Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., C. A. No. 10-433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. June 25, 2013)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 7 of 39 PageID: 1686
`
`o Failing to raise a claim by way of amending the complaint to include a claim
`
`on behalf of Dr. Zirvi regarding the ZipCode technology;
`
`o Advising that the only claim that could be brought against Illumina was a
`
`separate trade secret claim;
`
`o Failing to include Dr. Zirvi as a party to the first settlement of the case;
`
`o Failing to put Dr. Zirvi’s interest ahead of the co-conspirators’ interest
`
`during the Rule 60(b) Motion;
`
`o Failing to include Dr. Zirvi in the second settlement of the case;
`
`o Failing to provide copies of all documents exchanged between the co-
`
`conspirators during the litigation that directly related and impacted Dr.
`
`Zirvi’s right to enforce his intellectual property rights, including but not
`
`limited to the Settlement Agreements, Joint Venture Agreements, discovery
`
`documents, and communications between the parties.
`
`• The co-conspirators continued their overt action in Zirvi v. Flatley4 including:
`
`o Arguing jointly against Dr. Zirvi’s claims;
`
`o Arguing that the intellectual property violation was in plain sight without
`
`disclosing that the prior position taken by Illumina was that there was no
`
`intellectual property violation;
`
`o Arguing that the claim regarding the Trade Secret violation was time-barred
`
`but failing to inform the Court that Illumina, Thermo Fisher, and Defendant
`
`Attorneys worked in concert to conceal the claim and delay the bringing of
`
`a lawsuit regarding the same.
`
`
`4 Zirvi v. Flatley, 1:18- civ-07003-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 8 of 39 PageID: 1687
`
`• The co-conspirators continued their overt action in Zirvi v. U.S. NIH including:
`
`o Dr. Zirvi was seeking information from the National Institute of Health,
`
`Nation Institute of Standards and Technology, and the US Patent and
`
`Trademark Office and Illumina and Thermo Fisher moved to block access
`
`to unredacted documents;
`
`o Illumina fought to keep wrongfully redacted key documents under the guise
`
`of “proprietary information” which showed ZipCode technology was used
`
`in specific grant applications and a settlement agreement between Cornell,
`
`Illumina, and Thermo Fisher redacted;
`
`o Thermo Fisher submitted an affidavit stating under penalty of perjury that
`
`certain information should remain redacted including the fraudulent
`
`settlement agreement between Thermo Fisher and Illumina.
`
`Upon information and belief, this conspiracy enabled defendants Illumina and
`
`ThermoFisher to continue their joint business venture known as “Ampliseq for Illumina” product
`
`line. It allowed the parties to continue the redaction of key documents that would have shown the
`
`co-conspirators working together to subvert Dr. Zirvi’s claim. The subversion continues as of the
`
`filing of this response.5
`
`Upon information and belief, this conspiracy was carried out to protect both companies from
`
`past, present, and future liabilities related to the ZipCode technology. Defendant Illumina’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss fails to consider significant facts and misapplies the relevant legal principles.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims against Illumina Inc. are unique and distinguishable from previous litigation and
`
`are not time-barred. Therefore, the Complaint should not be dismissed.
`
`
`5 Including the current attempts by Illumina, Thermo Fisher, Akin Gump, and Latham &
`Watkins to stay discovery on all parties pending this Motion to Dismiss by Illumina only.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 9 of 39 PageID: 1688
`
`II. THE CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED
`
`A. Claims against Illumina are not barred by Res Judicata.
`
`Defendant, Illumina’s reliance on res judicata is misplaced. The case before the Court does
`
`not involve a judgment on the merits, the same claims, or the same parties.
`
`Under our jurisprudence, res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a
`subsequent suit where there has been: “(1) a final judgment on the
`merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same claim and (3) the same
`parties or their privies.” E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 921 F.2d 489,
`493 (3d Cir. 1990).…
`
`United States v. Athlone Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 984 (3d Cir.
`1984). Instead, a court focuses on whether a party: (1) complains of
`the same acts; (2) alleges the same material facts in each suit; and
`(3) requires the same witnesses and documentation to prove such
`allegations….
`
`Estate of Moore v. Roman, Civ. No. 18-16345 (RBK) (KMW)
`(D.N.J. Sep. 27, 2019).
`
`
`
`There has never been a judgment on the merits regarding Dr. Zirvi having not been named
`
`as an inventor on the patents at issue in this lawsuit. Dr. Zirvi attempted to enforce trade secret
`
`rights in prior litigation. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a statute of limitations defense
`
`invoking a sparsely used “storm warnings” doctrine.
`
`Notably, during the Cornell v. Illumina6 case, Cornell sought to set aside an April 14, 2017,
`
`Settlement Agreement by filing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) Motion.7 (“Rule 60(b) Motion”) In
`
`response, Illumina argued the Settlement Agreement could not be set aside because Rip Finst, as
`
`an employee of Thermo Fisher, bound the parties regardless of his fraudulent activities and
`
`conflicts of interest. This allegation from Illumina, rather than Plaintiff Dr. Zirvi, vitiates the
`
`Motion to Dismiss filed by Illumina.
`
`
`6 Cornell Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., C. A. No. 10-433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. June 25, 2013)
`7 Id. ECF No. 638.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 10 of 39 PageID: 1689
`
`In the Rule 60(b) Motion by Cornell University to vacate the settlement due to fraud a few
`
`short months later) at the bottom of page 12:
`
`“In short, the record (in Cornell v Illumina from 2010-2017) is devoid of any serious
`allegation, much less evidence, of misconduct by Illumina”8
`
`“Because the record is devoid of any serious allegation, much less evidence, that Illumina
`committed a fraud on Cornell [and the inventors of WO97/31256], the Court should deny
`Cornell’s request for discovery on the issue.”9
`
`Contrary to assertions made above, in Zirvi v Flatley, Illumina, and the other defendants in the
`
`motion to dismiss and their reply brief for the Appeal, claimed:
`
`The frauds detailed in the SAC and supported by evidence in over 90 exhibits were
`“obvious storm warnings.”
`
`Changing their story once again, during the Zirvi v. US NIH,
`
`Illumina denies allegations in paragraphs 22, 55-60. These are the very same allegations
`that are supported by the same exhibits (including Exhibits 15-23 in Zirvi v. United States
`NIH et al.) that Illumina had previously called “obvious storm warnings” of fraud.
`
`
`Former CEO of Illumina, Francis DeSouza, admitted in a January 2018 SEC filing that the
`
`“Ampliseq for Illumina” collaboration with ThermoFisher started “well over a year ago,” which is
`
`prior to the fraudulently induced settlement agreement in Cornell v. Illumina. Yet, during that
`
`litigation, the co-conspirators never disclosed a conflict existed.
`
`Likewise, it is another prime example of sketchy and contradictory statements made in
`
`public and in multiple court cases during fights over intellectual property.10
`
`
`
`8 Id. at pg. 12.
`9 Id. At fn. 3.
`10 Other examples include but are not limited to, Illumina and its attorneys and its former CEO
`Francis DeSouza (who was ousted from Illumina apparently for setting a new low in corporate
`governance, due to his decisions since joining Illumina and eventually becoming CEO in 2016)
`(See https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/lina-khan-fires-a-crooked-ceo)
`
`Furthermore, in multiple other cases, Illumina claimed no wrongdoing when faced with intellectual
`property claims only to be found liable of those claims in the end. In Syntrix Biosystems, Inc. v.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 11 of 39 PageID: 1690
`
`Further, statutes of limitation for trade secrets in 1994 and 1999 is not a defense to a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 256 as discussed further herein below. Similarly, where a “…ninety-day
`
`limitation that required dismissal of the first complaint was inapplicable to Elkadrawy’s PHRA
`
`claim, the Court concluded that res judicata did not apply….” Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., 584
`
`
`Illumina, Inc., No. C10-5870 BHS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157911, at *14 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4,
`2013), John Zebala, a graduate of the Barany Laboratory, won a $96 million dollar patent
`infringement verdict with ongoing royalties of six percent. A jury found that Illumina had induced
`its customers to infringe on the patents belonging to plaintiff Syntrix Biosystems, Inc (“Syntrix”).
`On appeal, the Judgment was increased to 115 million dollars including interest. In citing this case
`in a subsequent matter, the court noted that Syntrix had “submitted evidence of more egregious
`acts of reckless infringement [by Illumina].” See Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23581, at *24 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 26, 2015).
`
`Specifically, in the Cornell case, ECF No. 690 and ECF No. 698, Illumina’s Joinder and
`Declaration respectively, Illumina argues that fraud by an agent of ThermoFisher, Rip Finst,
`should not be allowed to undo the settlement agreement, stating:
`
`“Thus,....where Life Tech acted with at least apparent authority from Cornell, regardless of
`whether Life Tech may have acted improperly toward Cornell. The....regardless of the outcome of
`Life Tech’s and Cornell’s dispute. See Crumlish v. Price, 266 A.2d 182, 183–84 (Del. 1970) (“A
`principal is bound by an agent’s apparent authority which he knowingly permits the agent to
`assume of which he holds the agent out as possessing.”); Rest. 3d Agency, §2.03 (2006) ( “Apparent
`authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal ’s legal relations with
`third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf of the
`principal and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestations.”). Contracts made by an
`agent with apparent authority are valid against a third party even if fraudulent with respect to the
`principal. See Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Nat. Ass’n, 601 F.3d 212, 218–22 (3d Cir. 2010)
`(employer bound to credit card charges allegedly fraudulently made by employee); Liberty Mut.
`Ins. Co. v. Enjay Chem. Co., 316 A.2d 219, 223 (Del. 1974) (holding principal liable for loss where
`agent fraudulently converted payments made to agent by innocent third party who reasonably
`believed agent was acting on behalf of the principal).”
`
`Here, Illumina clearly implicated Rip Finst as the agent of Thermo Fisher whose fraudulent
`behavior affected Dr. Zirvi. Notably, the Settlement Agreement referred by Illumina related to
`rights and royalties belonging to Dr. Zirvi, yet he has never seen the Agreement because of active
`concealment by the Defendants and claims related to the Settlement Agreement remain open to
`claims including those pending in the present lawsuit which have never been adjudicated on merits
`and have never been subject to discovery.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 12 of 39 PageID: 1691
`
`F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009). As such res judicata did not apply where laches is no longer a viable
`
`defense.
`
`Moreover, there has not been a judgment on the merits of a civil conspiracy by Illumina
`
`and third parties, including attorneys purportedly representing Dr. Zirvi involved in the Cornell v.
`
`Illumina. In this case, the Defendants conspired to keep Dr. Zirvi alleges he was kept from being
`
`properly represented and compensated for his technology during the prosecution and settlements
`
`of Cornell v. Illumina. In addition, the Defendants delayed the claim being brought by Dr. Zirvi
`
`by, at first, pretending his interests were protected, then, advising him it was too late to bring a
`
`claim and throughout all times withholding key documents as the continue to do now with motions
`
`to stay discovery. These key documents include in part Defendants Illumina and Thermo Fisher,
`
`working with the Defendant Attorneys, on the settlement agreements effecting Dr. Zirvi’s rights
`
`and then claiming Dr. Zirvi had no right to see these documents. These agreements, as well as
`
`other documents were meant to foreclose any attempt by Dr. Zirvi to bring a valid claim regarding
`
`his inventive contributions in ZipCode technology.
`
`
`
`There are multiple exceptions to res judicata. One notable case that dealt with an exception
`
`to res judicata based on a change in conditions is Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983).
`
`In Nevada, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Nevada to litigate water rights even though the
`
`issue had been previously decided. The Court found that the res judicata doctrine did not apply
`
`because the earlier decree expressly anticipated that conditions might change, and it reserved
`
`jurisdiction to make future adjustments. In the current case, new information and evidence of fraud
`
`obtained by FOIA requests and the Zirvi v US NIH litigation that ended in 2022 with newly
`
`unredacted grant applications with evidence of fraud that was being actively concealed by Illumina
`
`would clearly merit overcoming res judicata. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 40, 43).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 78 Filed 08/29/23 Page 13 of 39 PageID: 1692
`
`Conversely, Zirvi v Flatley was a trade secret lawsuit prepared based on the information
`
`Plaintiff received from Rip Finst and Roger Chin (See Compl., Exhibit 8) during the Cornell
`
`litigation. There were no claims of legal malpractice or claims seeking to add Dr. Zirvi as an
`
`inventor to the Illumina patents brought in Zirvi v. Flatley. In addition, the Defendants are not
`
`identical in the two cases. The current case includes the lawyers who provided misleading and
`
`wrong legal advice regarding Dr. Zirvi’s rights as part of a conspiracy meant to enable Defendants
`
`Thermo Fisher and Illumina to enter into a new advantageous business relationship. The co-
`
`conspirators took overt acts and secreted key documents to cover their tracks and now demand the
`
`Court reward them by dismissing Dr. Zirvi’s claims.
`
`Only after Plaintiff Dr. Zirvi, pursued his claim related to trade secrets, and not until the
`
`finality of the Order dismissing Zirvi v Flatley did Dr. Zirvi discover the origin and existence of
`
`his injuries as related to the conduct of the Defendant Attorneys who failed to protect his rights in
`
`the earlier litigation. The failure to protect Dr. Zirvi’s rights in Cornell v. Illumina was a key part
`
`of the civil conspiracy. In June 2020, after the decision in Zirvi v Flatley was docketed, Dr. Zirvi
`
`had exhausted FOIA appeals and was forced to file a FOIA case against Dr. Zirvi, through of a
`
`series of FOIA requests on National Institute of Health and Nation Institute of Standards and
`
`Technology, regarding grants that funded Illumina’s product commercialization. Dr. Zirvi
`
`believed the grant applications would prove the ZipCode was in Illumina’s products and remained
`
`in ue even through the present day. However, Illumina obstructed Dr. Zirvi’s efforts again by
`
`demanding redaction of sections of the grant applications under the false pretense the applications
`
`contained trade secrets or business confi