• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
448 results

ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al

Docket 2:23-cv-01997, New Jersey District Court (Apr. 8, 2023)
Judge Madeline Cox Arleo, presiding, Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen
Patent
DivisionNewark
FlagsAPPEAL, CLOSED
Cause15:1126 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
... 7955794 ...
5002867500305950345065104791511486451302385132242514385351750825185243519430052022315216141523282952446365244813525447752987415302509531480953208145357590538602353875055399491540371154098185427930543572454459345455166547489554816295494810550398055081795514545552546455413115545522554553155545165571639557390755739095575849557883255958905602240561440256339725637684563960356440485656241566098856795245681702569089456959405705365571002957167855719028571902957337295744305579260757957145795716580099258043765834758584025658436695846710584671758467195849544585608358587325863708587421958769245888723588877958888195891636590048159225535935793594239159521745974164597679759940666013440601345660177386023540602560160278896040138605138060837636090558609649661106786124102618878362216036225060622991162516396291170630982263162296327410634641363554316372813639936564033206604902661048266186796620584677044168120056858394689074169138846931884703375470604317166431722673473614887455965745597175108417563576758242076118697612020767081077765317803537789962679018977914988
7955794
7960119800335480760638080380811036381506268150627820691782881038440407846086584812688486625849208585412078563246862895287416308795967888342488952688906626904579691632839279148928976693408349399795944126795355029537516
Plaintiff MONIB ZIRVI
Defendant ILLUMINA, INC.
Defendant AKIN GUMP STRAUSS ) HAUER & FELD LLP
...
cite Cite Docket

Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al.

Docket 1:20-cv-01646, Delaware District Court (Dec. 3, 2020)
Judge Jennifer L. Hall, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsCLOSED, MOTREF, PATENT
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10131937; 10131947; 10131951; 10167508; 10233496; 10289800; 10308981; 10533223; 10718019; 10718024; 7332277; 7727720; 7955794; 8700338; 8712697; 8756020; 9206417; 9567639; 9624490; 9890421; 9994897
73322777727720
7955794
87003388712697875602092064179567639962449098904219994897
Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc.
Defendant Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
Defendant Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 146 LETTER ORDER: In light of the foregoing, the 10/16/24 Telephone Status Conference is canceled

Document ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 146 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2024)
United States District Court MLK Jr. Federal Bldg.
Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102 Re: Zirvi v. Illumina, Inc., et al. Dear Judges Arleo and Alien: My firm, along with Sidley Austin, represents Defendant Illumina, Inc. in the above- captioned matter.
I am writing to advise the Court that, after Illumina filed its letter yesterday.
The parties are currently finalizing execution of the written settlement agreement, and Illumina therefore no longer requires the assistance of the Court.
Accord^agly, we withdraw our request for the Court to reopen this case to address settlement issuer We thank Your Honors for your attention to this matter.
cite Cite Document

No. 139 ORDER denying 120 Motion for Reconsideration as to the Akin Defendants and the case is CLOSED

Document ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 139 (D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2024)
Motion for ReconsiderationDenied
Dear Litigants: Before this Court is Plaintiff Monib Zirvi’s (“Zirvi”) Motion for Reconsideration (the “Motion”) of the Court’s Order, ECF No. 119 (the “April Order”), dismissing his Complaint with prejudice.
Following an in-person settlement conference with the Honorable Jessica S. Allen, Zirvi has withdrawn his Motion as to Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Rip Finst, Sean Boyle, Illumina, Inc., Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin, and Douglas Lumish (the “Settling Defendants”).
His Motion, therefore, proceeds only as to Defendants Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Akin”), Matthew A. Pearson (“Pearson”), and Angela Verrecchio (“Verrecchio”) (collectively, the “Akin Defendants”).
For the reasons stated below, Zirvi’s Motion is DENIED.1 To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
As Plaintiff fails to state any new issues of fact and has not otherwise met the standard for reconsideration, his Motion must be denied.
cite Cite Document

No. 137 ORDER that Plaintiff Zirvi's pending motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 120) as to the Settling ...

Document ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 137 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2024)
THIS MATTER having come before the Court for an in-person Settlement Conference on July 31, 2024; and Plaintiff Monib Zirvi and Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Rip Finst, Sean Boyle, Illumina, Inc., Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin, and Douglas Lumish (“Settling Defendants”) having reached a settlement; and the Court having placed the material terms of the settlement on the record; and for good cause shown; IT IS on this 31st day of July 2024,
Plaintiff Zirvi’s pending motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 120) as to the Settling Defendants only is hereby withdrawn.
The respective pending motions of Defendants Illumina, Inc. and Thermo Fisher and Rip Finst for sanctions (ECF Nos. 99 and 104) are hereby withdrawn and terminated.
cite Cite Document

No. 132

Document ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 132 (D.N.J. Jul. 11, 2024)

cite Cite Document

No. 119 LETTER ORDER that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

Document ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 119 (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2024)
The court in the SDNY Litigation summarized Zirvi’s allegations: The gravamen of the Complaint is that the defendants misappropriated the plaintiffs’ trade secrets in violation of both federal and New York state law in 1994 and 1999.
The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that, at best, the SDNY plaintiffs’ federal claims “began to run no later than the dates of the 2006 patent interference proceedings before the [USPTO] and the 2010 [Delaware Litigation].” Zirvi v. Flatley, 838 F. App’x 582, 585 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, the claims must be facially plausible, meaning that the pleaded facts “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The malpractice claim, while not brought in the SDNY Litigation, is based on the recycled theory that Thermo Fisher conspired with Illumina to deprive Zirvi of his intellectual property and trade secrets.
6 In the SDNY SAC, plaintiffs allege that attorneys were involved in the scheme: “[i]n the [Delaware Litigation] prior to his deposition and for a period immediately afterwards, Doctor Zirvi was specifically instructed by the lawyers for ThermoFisher not to look at any patents or any other scientific material that could be used as evidence in the case.
cite Cite Document

No. 355 SO ORDERED, re (274 in 1:20-cv-01734-JLH, 354 in 1:20-cv-01646-JLH) Stipulated Scheduling Order ...

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 355 (D.Del. Apr. 22, 2024)
WHEREAS an amended scheduling order was entered in the above-captioned actions on March 28, 2023 coordinating them for pretrial purposes (D.I.
234 in No. 20-1734; Jan. 22, 2024 Order); WHEREAS the Court ordered that the jury trial involving the Roche Defendants shall take place during the week of October 28, 2024, with jury selection on October 25, 2024, and that the Court anticipates it will hear Defendants’ equitable defenses, including inequitable conduct, in both cases concurrently with the first jury trial outside the presence of the jury and will make a decision regarding the schedule at the pretrial conference (Oral Order, D.I.
273 in No. 20-1734); Now, therefore, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned cases shall continue to be coordinated for pretrial purposes and through a single bench trial on Defendants’ equitable defenses, including inequitable conduct, as set forth in the schedule below:
Case Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions Case Dispositive Hearing Date Pretrial Conference for First Jury Trial in No. 20-1646 and for Bench Trial in Both Cases Jury Selection Five-Day Jury Trial in No. 20- 1646 to Commence
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>