Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 2215
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action No.
`2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA
`
`Filed Electronically
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`MONIB ZIRVI, M.D., Ph. D.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`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.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
`[ECF NO. 82-1] and [ECF NO. 84-1]
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 44 PageID: 2216
`
`Contents
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................ 5
`
`ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT .......................................................... 7
`
`ALLEGATIONS FROM THE DECLARATION OF DR. ZIRVI ..........................12
`
`DR. ZIRVI IS NOT SUING FOR TRADE SECRET THEFT ............................13
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................27
`
`I. THE COMPLAINT STATES A CLAIM ......................................................27
`
`A. Legal Standard For A Motion To Dismiss ..............................................27
`
`B. No Claim Preclusions Bar Zirvi’s Claims ...............................................28
`
`C. No Issue Preclusions Bars Dr. Zirvi’s Claims. ...........................................30
`
`D. Dr. Zirvi Has A Protectable Interest Under 35 U.S.C. § 256 ..................33
`
`E. Zirvi Has Pleaded The Existence Of An Attorney-Client Relationship ..34
`
`II. FRAUD IS PLEAD WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY ...................................39
`
`III. THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED. ...............................42
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................44
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................44
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 3 of 44 PageID: 2217
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................40
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ............................................................27
`Beasley v. Howard, 14 F.4th 226, 232 (3d Cir. 2021) .............................................28
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................40
`Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 387 F.3d 298, 310 (3d Cir. 2004)..............................32
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., 402 U.S. at 331, 333, 91 S.Ct. 1434 ..................................32
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) ...........................................36
`Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Hyundai Merck Marine Co., 63 F.3d 1227,
`1231-32 (3d Cir.1995) ..........................................................................................30
`CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls Am., Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1999) ..........29
`CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls America, Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1999) ...29
`Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) ..............33
`Greater Area Inc. v. Bookman, 657 P.2d 828, 829 (Alaska 1982) ..........................38
`Grunwald v. Bronkesh, 131 N.J. 483, 494-95, 621 A.2d 459, 464 (1993) ..............39
`Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis.2d 144, 465 N.W.2d 812, 816 (1991) ......................38
`Hood, 93 N.M. 433, 601 P.2d 66, 67 (1979 .............................................................38
`In re Burlington Coat Factory, 114 F.3d 1410, 1418 (3d Cir. 1997) ......................40
`In re Graham, 973 F.2d 1089, 1097 (3d Cir.1992) .................................................30
`In re Healthcare Real Est. Partners, LLC, 941 F.3d 64, 72 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting
`Mullarkey, 536 F.3d at 225) .................................................................................28
`In re Loring, 73 N.J. 282, 289-90, 374 A.2d 466 (1977) ........................................37
`In re Palmieri, 76 N.J. 51, 58-59 (1978) .................................................................35
`In re Silverman, 113 N.J. 193, 207 (1998) ..............................................................34
`Kaye v. Rosefielde, 432 N.J. Super. 421, 477 (App. Div. 2013) .............................34
`Knight v. Furlow, 553 A.2d 1232, 1234 (D.C.App.1989) .......................................38
`Laird v. Blacker, 235 Cal.App.3d 1795, 279 Cal.Rptr. 700, 701, aff'd, 2 Cal.4th
`606, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 552, 828 P.2d 691, 693 (1992) .......................................38
`Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv., 349 U.S. 322 (1955)..................................................29
`Luick v. Rademacher, 129 Mich.App. 803, 342 N.W.2d 617, 619 (1983) ..............38
`Magic World, Inc. v. Icardi, 483 So.2d 815, 817 (Fla.App.1986) ..........................38
`Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Fletcher, Tilton & Whipple, 394 Mass. 265, 475 N.E.2d
`390, 391 (1985) .....................................................................................................38
`Papera v. Pa. Quarried Bluestone Co., 948 F.3d 607, 611 (3d Cir. 2020) .............28
`Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d
`552 (1979) .............................................................................................................30
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 4 of 44 PageID: 2218
`
`Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 328, 332, 99 S.Ct. 645 ............................................32
`Peloro v. U.S., 488 F.3d 163, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2007) ..............................................31
`Peloro v. U.S., 488 F.3d 163, 175 (3d Cir. 2007) ....................................................32
`Peters v. Simmons, 87 Wash.2d 400, 552 P.2d 1053, 1056 (1976) .........................38
`SCE Group, Inc. v. Garson, No. 21-CV-19944 (D.N.J. July 26, 2022) ..................35
`Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2009).........................................34
`Shapiro, 964 F.2d at 284 (citing Christidis v. First Pa. Mortgage Trust, 717 F.2d
`96, 99 (3d Cir. 1983) .............................................................................................39
`Skidmore & Hall v. Rottman, 5 Ohio St.3d 210, 450 N.E.2d 684, 685 (1983) .......38
`Trecartin v. Mahoney-Troast Constr. Co., 21 N.J. Super. 69, 90 A.2d 273 (App.
`Div. 1952) .............................................................................................................27
`United States v. Athlone Indus., 746 F.2d 977, 984 (3d Cir. 1984) .........................29
`Vance v. Scerbo, No. A-2019-17T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 26, 2019) .....35
`Wall v. Lewis, 393 N.W.2d 758, 761 (N.D.1986) ....................................................38
`Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 290 A.2d 530, 533 (1972) ...................................38
`Zahl v. Eastland, 465 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2020) ...........................................36
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .................................................................................................42
`35 U.S.C. § 256 ........................................................................................................33
`Canon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. JL Barrett Corp., No. 10-cv-4117, 2010 WL 4746242,
`*3 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2010).....................................................................................42
`CIBC World Markets, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d 637, 651
`(D.N.J. 2004).........................................................................................................43
`
`Rules
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) ....................................................................................................32
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 5 of 44 PageID: 2219
`
`Plaintiff, Dr. Monib Zirvi, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in
`
`response to Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific (“Thermo Fisher”), Akin Gump
`
`Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Akin”), Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”), Rip Finst,
`
`Sean Boyle, Matthew A. Pearson, Angela Verrecchio, Roger Chin, and Douglas
`
`Lumish (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) memorandum of law in support of
`
`their motion to dismiss and Defendant Douglas Lumish separate memorandum of
`
`law in support of their motion to dismiss.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`This Complaint is about the incorporation of ZipCode technology in
`
`numerous Illumina patents without naming Dr. Zirvi as an inventor and the
`
`Defendant Attorneys who did nothing to protect Dr. Zirvi related to the same while
`
`claiming they would represent him.
`
`This Complaint is not a rehashing of claims made by Plaintiff Monib Zirvi in
`
`the prior lawsuit brought in New York in 2018 (the “SDNY Litigation”) where his
`
`claims were dismissed with prejudice. Zirvi v. Flatley, 433 F. Supp. 3d 448, 467
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“Zirvi I”), aff ’d, 838 F. App’x 582 (2d Cir. 2020). The Order of
`
`Dismissal in the SDNY Litigation was based on the Court’s examination of
`
`allegations that:
`
`…under both federal and New York State law, arise out of
`two alleged instances of misappropriation of trade secrets,
`one occurring in 1994 when certain trade secrets were
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 6 of 44 PageID: 2220
`
`allegedly stolen from a confidential grant proposal, and
`one occurring in 1999 when alleged trade secrets were
`allegedly
`misappropriated
`during
`confidential
`communications. The plaintiffs allege that these two acts
`of misappropriation resulted in the theft of both positive
`and negative trade secrets.” Id. at 454-455.
`
`The claims made in the current case are not for the theft of trade secrets. Rather the
`
`claims under federal law stem from Illumina’s failure to name Plaintiff as an
`
`inventor on multiple Illumina patents, the legal malpractice that occurred in the
`
`Cornell v. Illumina Litigation that allowed Illumina to do the same, and the
`
`conspiracy between the Defendants to let Illumina get away with the scheme. The
`
`legal malpractice claims would not ripen until the conclusion of the SDNY
`
`Litigation. Nothing in the Order of Dismissal in the SDNY Litigation addressed
`
`these claims.
`
`
`
`The Order of Dismissal in the SDNY Litigation found that the statute of
`
`limitations, as applied to the trade secret claims raised in that case, had passed. The
`
`Order of Dismissal in the SDNY Litigation held that the statute of limitations of
`
`those claims “…began to run no later than the dates of the patent interference
`
`proceedings before the USPTO and the litigation in the federal district court in
`
`Delaware. In 2006, two plaintiffs in this action, Zirvi and Kempe, were named as
`
`junior parties in the interference before the USPTO. Gorman Decl., Ex. 25. In
`
`2010, Cornell University, the assignee of many of the patents relevant in this
`
`case, sued Illumina, Inc. regarding many of the same patents, which, at the very
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 7 of 44 PageID: 2221
`
`least, put the plaintiffs in this case on inquiry, if not actual, notice.” Id. at 460.1
`
`Contrary to the Defendants’ assertions, this holding is a basis, and not a bar, for the
`
`present case. In the current case it was the purposeful lack of pursuing claims in the
`
`Cornell v. Illumina Litigation and then advising Dr. Zirvi at the twelfth hour to seek
`
`a separate trade secret claim in the SDNY Litigation that lead to the malpractice
`
`claims in the instant case. As alleged in this Complaint, it was an undisclosed
`
`conflict of interest that led to the Defendant Attorneys to commit the malpractice.
`
`The malpractice damage only ripened upon the SDNY Litigation finding that Dr.
`
`Zirvi could not be compensated through a trade secret claim.
`
`The Plaintiff asserts that the following allegations in the Complaint and in the
`
`accompanying Declaration of Plaintiff, Dr. Zirvi, (See Exhibit 4 attached hereto)
`
`should be taken as true for the purpose of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
`
`ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT
`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, LLC1 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,
`
`1 Notably, the Court could not dismiss based on standing because “…these issues
`on a motion to dismiss because there are factual disputes about the circumstances
`under which the intellectual property was developed.” Id. at fn5.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 8 of 44 PageID: 2222
`
`LifeTechnologies 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….
`
`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.
`
`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.…
`
`23. Attorneys for the Plaintiff repeatedly requested via
`phone calls, video teleconferences, and emails for Plaintiff
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 9 of 44 PageID: 2223
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 10 of 44 PageID: 2224
`
`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 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.
`
`38. The Plaintiff has not been recognized as an inventor on
`any of Illumina’s patents using the Zip Code Operating
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 11 of 44 PageID: 2225
`
`System; has not received royalties from Illumina’s use of
`Plaintiff’s Zip Code Operating System in their software
`and products….
`
`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).
`
`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).2
`
`2 In Czarnik v. Illumina, Case 1:05-cv-00400- JJF, Czarnik successfully plead:
`104. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendant Illumina's actions,
`including Illumina not giving Dr. Czarnik the credit and recognition as a co-
`inventor that he was entitled to for his contributions to the patented microarray
`technology, Dr. Czarnik has suffered damage to his reputation and standing
`within the scientific community, has not received the reputational benefits
`associated with being named as an inventor, and has suffered a loss of prestige
`within the scientific community resulting from his inventions being recognized
`as another's.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 12 of 44 PageID: 2226
`
`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 to name the claimant as an inventor on the
`patents has undermined the claimant's reputation and
`standing in the scientific community.
`
`49. The Plaintiff’s claim is based on 35 U.S.C. § 256,
`which provides for correction of inventorship in patents.
`Plaintiff believes that the assignee erred in failing to name
`Plaintiff as an inventor on the patents and that this error
`should be corrected.
`
`ALLEGATIONS FROM THE DECLARATION OF DR. ZIRVI
`Dr. Zirvi confirms the extent of the contact Plaintiff had with the
`
`Defendant Attorneys. Plaintiff and Matthew Pearson were on over 300 emails,
`
`106. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendant Illumina's actions,
`including Illumina not giving Dr. Czarik the credit and recognition as a co-
`inventor that he was entitled to for his contributions to the patented microarray
`technology, Dr. Czarnik has not been able to "join another start-up and get
`another few hundred thousand shares of stock" which, as set forth above,
`amounted to an annual salary of approximately $1 million. As a direct and
`foreseeable consequence of these actions by Defendant Illumina, Dr. Czarnik has
`been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`The same is true regarding Dr. Zirvi has not received the reputational benefits
`associated with being named as an inventor and has suffered a loss of prestige
`within the scientific community resulting from his inventions being recognized
`as another's.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 13 of 44 PageID: 2227
`
`containing 1600 pages from February 2015 - April 17, 2017.3 Plaintiff and Roger
`
`Chin were on 80 emails, containing 260 pages from January 2017 – April 2017.4
`
`Plaintiff and Douglas Lumish were on 80 emails, containing 260 pages from
`
`January 2017 – April 2017.5 In addition, during the Cornell v. Illumina
`
`Litigation there were in person meetings, Webex meetings, PowerPoint
`
`presentations, deposition preparations, a defending of Plaintiffs deposition, and
`
`interaction with counsel at the Markman hearing in Delaware. All under the
`
`guise that Dr. Zirvi was being represented by the Defendant Attorneys.
`
`DR. ZIRVI IS NOT SUING FOR TRADE SECRET THEFT
`
`The claims made in this case are not for theft of a trade secret. The
`
`Defendant Attorneys correctly point out the Second Circuit, affirmed the district
`
`court’s finding that Dr. Zirvi’s claims regarding trade secret theft were time-
`
`barred by no later than May 2014. The Defendant Attorneys knew, or should
`
`have known, that claims could have been made in the Cornell v. Illumina
`
`Litigation that would relate back to its original filing in 2010. The Defendant
`
`Attorneys should have known that a conflict of interest was present from the
`
`very beginning of the Cornell v. Illumina Litigation and remained throughout.
`
`3 Exhibit 1 hereto contains an important sample of the many emails with Dr. Zirvi
`and Matthew Pearson. All of the emails are available.
`4 Exhibit 2 contains an important sample of the emails with Roger Chin and Dr.
`Zirvi.
`
`5 Exhibit 3 contains key the emails with Douglas Lumish and Dr. Zirvi.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 14 of 44 PageID: 2228
`
`Rip Finst was counsel from the start of the Cornell v. Illumina Litigation and he,
`
`along with every other attorney who joined in later failed to advise Dr. Zirvi of
`
`his rights or the conflict. Consequently, The ruling in the Cornell v. Illumina
`
`Litigation and the SDNY Litigation are not fatal to Dr. Zirvi’s claims but are the
`
`basis of his claims against the Defendant Attorneys.
`
`First, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not bar Dr. Zirvi from
`
`advancing because the claims are not the same in this case nor are the parties.
`
`Defendant Attorneys cannot hide behind a claim of privity with Thermo
`
`Fisher. Zirvi claims his own privity with the Defendant Attorneys.
`
`Defendant Attorneys’ privity with both is at the root of the conflict-of-
`
`interest allegations against Defendant Attorneys. The SDNY Litigation
`
`was a case regarding theft of trade secrets based on the advice of Roger Chin.
`
`Had the SDNY Litigation resulted in Dr. Zirvi recovering his damages under
`
`a theory of trade secret violation then a claim for malpractice would not be
`
`viable because the damages would have been paid. Consequently, the result
`
`of the SDNY Litigation was not preclusive but necessary for the claims against
`
`the Defendant Attorneys.
`
`Second, there is no “fatal flaw” in Dr. Zirvi’s claims because the SDNY
`
`Litigation established that the clock had already run out on his claims well before
`
`his alleged interactions with Thermo Fisher and its lawyers. This interaction with
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 15 of 44 PageID: 2229
`
`Thermo Fisher and his lawyers was during the Cornell v. Illumina Litigation that
`
`started in 2010. The Defendants Attorneys knew Dr. Zirvi had claims that could
`
`relate back to the filing of the Complaint. Moreover, the Defendant Attorneys
`
`knew their conflict of interest caused by the new Thermo Fisher and Illumina
`
`alliance, known as “Ampliseq for Illumina” caused them to ignore the legal issues
`
`raised by Dr. Zirvi in early 2017 and would lead them to exclude Dr. Zirvi’s in
`
`the settlement of the Cornell v. Illumina Litigation.6 The Defendant Attorneys
`
`actively chose not to inform Dr. Zirvi of either and instead feigned to protect his
`
`interest throughout out. The damage for such acts would only be realized upon the
`
`conclusion of the SDNY Litigation.
`
`Third, Dr. Zirvi’s claims do not hinge on the notion that he had a valid and
`
`enforceable trade secret to begin with. Because of the malpractice Dr. Zirvi has
`
`been precluded from seeking a claim based on a theory of trade secret theft for
`
`which the clock has run out. Moreover, the failure to disclose a conflict by the
`
`Defendant Attorneys undermined Dr. Zirvi’s claims and his position regarding
`
`6 See Exhibit 5 attached hereto, Docket sheet from Cornell v. Illumina Litigation.
`In February 2017, Life Tech informed Cornell that it was pursuing settlement
`discussions with Illumina. Life Tech and Cornell subsequently exchanged several
`communications, including e-mails, related to those discussions. Upon information
`and belief, these emails include responses to Dr. Zirvi’s and Dr. Barany’s
`numerous emails from February 2017 to April 2017 in which were against the
`interest of Dr. Zirvi as a co-inventor and party whose interest were supposed to be
`protected.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 16 of 44 PageID: 2230
`
`settlements reached in the Cornell v. Illumina Litigation. Settlements he has
`
`never seen.7
`
`However, Dr. Zirvi’s right to bring a malpractice claim based on the
`
`Defendant Attorneys letting the clock expire is not out of time. The right to sue
`
`for malpractice for
`
`the Defendant Attorneys engaging
`
`in conflicting
`
`representation that resulted in damages to Dr. Zirvi has not run out. Neither has
`
`his right to be named as an inventor on the Illumina patents as argued in Dr.
`
`Zirvi’s response to Illumina’s Motion to Dismiss. Dr. Zirvi has alleged in this
`
`case that he was the inventor of ZipCode technology that has been incorporated
`
`in many of Illumina’s patents and as such he should be named as a co-inventor
`
`on these patents. Dr. Zirvi, upon his discovery of his ZipCode technology in
`
`Illumina’s products and patents, raised these facts with Defendant Attorneys in
`
`late 2016 and throughout early 2017. However, he was advised that his was a
`
`claim for trade secret violation and one that could not be brought in Cornell v.
`
`Illumina Litigation but separately. That advice was wrong.
`
`Defendant Attorneys argue that in the SDNY Litigation, the court held
`
`that Zirvi had no protectable trade secret. However, it was Roger Chin who
`
`advised of the claim in the first place, long after the Defendant Attorneys should
`
`7 New Jersey law requires a Plaintiff file an affidavit of merit regarding claims of
`malpractice which Plaintiff did in this case and incorporates by reference herein
`into this response.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 17 of 44 PageID: 2231
`
`have advised of an obvious conflict of interest. The claims in this case regarding
`
`ZipCode technology are not based on trade secret law. Rather, they are based on
`
`Dr. Zirvi’s ZipCode technology having been incorporated into Illumina’s patents
`
`with the knowledge of Defendant Attorneys who did nothing to protect Dr.
`
`Zirvi’s interest in the same and tried to bury any legal claim he made have had
`
`regarding the same.
`
`Fourth, Dr. Zirvi has pled, and offers in his responsive Declaration
`
`evidence of a long line of communications that establish an attorney client
`
`relationship as detailed above. Fifth, the complaint pleads acts of malpractice
`
`with enough specificity, and an affidavit of merit against all the Defendant
`
`Attorneys and their unblemished reputations have no bearing on this Complaint.
`
`Sixth, Zirvi’s claims for alleged “correction” of inventorship was laid at the feet
`
`of the Defendant Attorneys in January and February of 2017, however as
`
`alleged in the Complaint Thermo Fisher and its counsel (allegedly representing
`
`the best interest of Dr. Zirvi) were more interested in conducting business with
`
`Illumina to form a joint product line that would reap new profit for the two
`
`companies, than continuing litigation to “correct” the patents at issue.
`
`In January 2018, CEO Francis DeSouza in official SEC filings was asked
`
`about the backstory about Ampliseq for Illumina. When asked in an investor
`
`information call about
`
`the Ampliseq for Illumina collaboration with
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 92 Filed 10/02/23 Page 18 of 44 PageID: 2232
`
`ThermoFisher, Francis DeSouza stated that “...And so we started the
`
`conversation clearly well over a year ago.” This put the collaboration start at
`
`most at the end of 2016 to January 2017, around the time Rip Finst insisted on
`
`new counsel Roger Chin and Douglas Lumish in Cornell v Illumina. During the
`
`entire SDNY case, there was no reason to believe that Francis DeSouza was
`
`lying in an official SEC filing as that is illegal due to the duty of candor to
`
`investors and the SEC. After the SDNY case had been decided, new information
`
`came to light during the FTC investigation of the Illumina-GRAIL merger. This
`
`led to the discovery that Francis DeSouza had lied in official court documents
`
`about bitcoins in a divorce settlement. This “storm warning” of fraud, put
`
`plaintiff Zirvi on inquiry notice as to the true start date of the Ampliseq for
`
`Illumina collaboration. Diligent searches of public records showed that a
`
`LinkedIn profile for an employee of Illumina (see exhibit) s

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket