Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 135 (D.N.J. Jul. 16, 2024)
Dear Judge Allen: write on behalf of Plaintiff Dr. Monib Zirvi in response to Mr. Haefner's letter dated July 15, 2024, concerning the attendance of Defendants Rip Finst and Sean Boyle at the upcoming settlement conference.
Rip Finst and Sean Boyle were not just in-house counsel for Thermo Fisher, they actively participated in the Cornell litigation on behalf of all parties of interest in the claims against Illumina, including Dr. Zirvi.
The Sbarro court stated that while it was "true that generally an attorney is not liable to third persons for negligence in the performance of his professional duties ..., this rule is not all encompassing."
206, 527 A.2d 480 (App.Div.1987), an attorney who had negligently failed to obtain easement rights for a municipality was held liable to a successful bidder for construction of a sewer facility.
Opposing counsel incorrectly argues the Court’s Order on July 9, 2024 (ECF No. 129), provided "similarly situated defendants" the right to participate by phone.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 135 (D.N.J. Jul. 16, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 134 (D.N.J. Jul. 15, 2024)
Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Re: Monib Zirvi, M.D., Ph.D. v. Illumina, Inc. et al. Civil Action No.: 2:23-cv-1997 (MCA/JSA)
This firm, along with Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, represents Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rip Finst, and Sean Boyle (collectively “Thermo Fisher”) in the above-referenced matter.
We write briefly in reply to Plaintiff Zirvi’s letter of earlier today, which insists that individual defendants Rip Finst and Sean Boyle be required to travel across the country to appear in-person for a settlement conference in a case in which all charges have already been dismissed, including charges premised on the absurd notion that these Thermo Fisher in-house counsel formerly represented Mr. Zirvi, even though he was not a Thermo Fisher employee and never retained them.
This Court, with Plaintiff Zirvi’s consent, has already permitted other similarly situated defendants to participate in the upcoming conference by phone, while a representative appears on their behalf in person.
Indeed, common sense dictates that forcing individual defendants (especially those that are being indemnified and thus have no true personal liability in the matter) to travel across the country for the sake of their alleged “firsthand perspectives and immediate decision-making capabilities” has a greater likelihood of alienating these defendants (and their indemnifying corporate employer) than of providing any real benefit.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 134 (D.N.J. Jul. 15, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 133 (D.N.J. Jul. 15, 2024)
While we understand the logistical challenges and obligations of Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle, we believe their in-person attendance at the settlement conference set for July 31, 2024, is crucial.
Rip Finst and Sean Boyle were both attorneys of record in the Cornell litigation presumably representing the interest of Plaintiff as an inventor.
The settlement conference is a critical opportunity for all parties to engage directly, address specific concerns, and work towards a resolution.
The physical presence of all key individuals can enhance communication, ensure immediate feedback, and facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.
Given that Mr. Finst and Mr. Boyle have substantial knowledge and direct involvement in the matters under dispute, their absence could limit the effectiveness of the discussions.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 133 (D.N.J. Jul. 15, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 131 (D.N.J. Jul. 12, 2024)
United States District Court Martin Luther King Building & U.S.
v. Illumina, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA This law firm, along with Shapiro Arato Bach LLP, represents Defendant Thermo Fisher Scientific (“Thermo Fisher”) in the above-referenced matter.
At the upcoming settlement conference set for July 31, 2024 (ECF No. 121), I will appear in person, along with outside counsel Jonathan Bach, on behalf of all three Thermo Fisher Defendants.
We write to request that Defendants Finst and Boyle be excused from the conference or permitted to attend telephonically.
Thus, cognizant of the Court’s interest in this matter and having an efficient conference, we propose this accommodation believing it will serve to further, not hamper, the Court’s efforts.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 131 (D.N.J. Jul. 12, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 130 (D.N.J. Jul. 10, 2024)
United States District Court Martin Luther King Building & U.S.
Dear Magistrate Judge Allen: This law firm represents Defendants Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) and its attorneys Roger Chin and Douglas Lumish in the above-referenced matter.
I will represent these Defendants in person at the settlement conference along with Natalie Weiss, who is Assistant General Counsel at Latham.
We respectfully request permission for the attorney at Latham who has been principally responsible for handling this matter, Charles Sanders, to attend the settlement conference by telephone.
Mr. Sanders is based in Boston and will be in California during the week of the settlement conference for a hearing in federal court and client meetings.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 130 (D.N.J. Jul. 10, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 532 (D.Del. Aug. 20, 2024)
Motion to Stay
Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc. and Defendants Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. move to stay in this case for a period of 7 days.
The parties are discussing settlement and wish to conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources so that the parties can focus on resolving this matter.
The parties thus request that the Court stay all dates in this case for 7 days from the date of this stipulation (August 27, 2024), and that the parties file a status update on or before August 27, 2024 advising the Court of settlement status and the parties’ respective positions on whether the stay should continue.
Attorneys for Defendants Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc.
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
Cite Document
Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 532 (D.Del. Aug. 20, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 128 (D.N.J. Jun. 28, 2024)
Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 Re: Zirvi v. Illumina, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-01997 (MCA) (JSA) Dear Judge Allen, We acknowledge and respect the request made by Denise Alvarez on behalf of Defendants Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Matthew A. Pearson, Esq., and Angela Verrecchio, seeking permission for remote participation in the upcoming settlement conference scheduled for July 31, 2024.
While we understand the logistical challenges posed by long-distance travel, we strongly believe that in-person attendance by all parties is critical for the effective and efficient resolution of this complex matter.
The interrelationship of the parties and pending motion for reconsideration introduces potential new developments and complexities that could significantly impact the scope and dynamics of the settlement conference.
Akin Gump's hardship claim, involving domestic travel from California, does not meet the threshold of "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify remote participation.
As an alternative, Akin Gump may delegate a Partner from Philadelphia or New York City with full and actual settlement authority to attend in person without objection from the Plaintiff.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 128 (D.N.J. Jun. 28, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 127 (D.N.J. Jun. 26, 2024)
This firm represents Defendants Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Matthew A. Pearson, Esq., and Angela Verrecchio (collectively, “Akin”) in the above-referenced matter.
We respectfully request that Akin be excused from attending the settlement conference in person and be permitted to participate remotely instead.
Akin’s primary representative with settlement authority, Robert B. Humphreys, Esq., lives and works in California and traveling to New Jersey for the settlement conference presents a considerable hardship.
This burden is particularly undue here, where the Court has already dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice [ECF No. 119], and accordingly, the issues will likely be narrow.
will be attending in person on behalf of Akin and, if this request is granted, Mr. Humphreys agrees to be available all day by telephone and/or Zoom or videoconference to participate as needed.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 127 (D.N.J. Jun. 26, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 97 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2023)
Madeline Cox Arleo Oral Argument Requested Motion Date: October 16, 2023
As such, even if Zirvi had adequately pled that the Latham Defendants represented him, California law would apply and bar his claims.
On March 31, 2017, Zirvi wrote that he “reserve[d] the right to act [as] advised by [his non-Latham] attorney” after being expressly told that Latham was “engaged to represent Cornell’s interests”—not Zirvi’s interests.
D’Ambly v. Exoo, 2021 WL 5084364, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2021) (malpractice claim dismissed for failure to plead an attorney-client relationship); Hass v. Sacramento Cnty.
But Zirvi does not contest that, if he became Latham’s client as a third-party beneficiary of Latham’s representation of Cornell (which he did not), then he would have been bound by the agreement’s choice of law clause.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 97 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 99 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2023)
Motion for Sanctions
Ahmed M. Soliman Soliman & Associates, P.C 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Clerk, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Martin Luther King Building & U.S.
Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Joseph D. Garrity Lorium Law 101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Amar Anand Agrawal Eisenberg, Gold & Agrawal, PC 1040 Kings Highway North, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Denise Alvarez Michael S. Stein Brendan Michael Walsh Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, P.C. 21 Main Street, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Michelle Ernst Latham & Watkins LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Liza M. Walsh Marc D. Haefner Selina Miriam Ellis Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP Three Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Illumina Inc., by and through its counsel—upon failure of Plaintiff to withdraw with prejudice his claims against Defendant Illumina on or before October 3, 2023—shall move before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge, for an Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposing sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, including an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Illumina.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant Illumina will rely on the accompanying Memorandum of Law and Exhibits attached thereto in support of its Motion.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed Order is submitted herewith.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 99 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 92 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2023)
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….
(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.
The Appellate Division held that the New Jersey state court had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state attorneys who were admitted pro hac vice in the federal case, based on similar factors as those considered in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).
Plaintiff Zirvi received Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 (See ECF 1) filled with incorrect legal analysis and purposeful omissions which he trusted because he did not have access to information under the protective order in the Cornell v. Illumina Litigation that Defendant Attorneys possessed.
(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.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 92 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 82 (D.N.J. Sep. 19, 2023)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
Filed Electronically Motion Day: October 16, 2023 Oral Argument Requested
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 16, 2023, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Rip Finst, Sean Boyle, Matthew A. Pearson, Angela Verrecchio, Roger Chin, and Douglas Lumish (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”), shall move before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against the Moving Defendants in its entirety, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
R. 78.1, the Moving Defendants respectfully request oral argument on all issues raised in this motion.
FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attorneys for Defendants Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Matthew A. Pearson, and Angela Verrecchio William H. Trousdale Michael S. Miller Jared P. DuVoisin
& BARRY LLP 3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 402 Roseland, NJ 07068 Charles H. Sanders (pro hac vice pending) LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 Michelle L. Ernst LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Attorneys for Defendants Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin, and Douglas Lumish Liza M. Walsh Marc D. Hafner Selina M. Ellis WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP Three Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Jonathan P. Bach (pro hac vice) Julian S. Brod (pro hac vice) SHAPIRO ARATO BACH LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor New York, NY 10036 Attorneys for Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rip Finst, and Sean Boyle
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 82 (D.N.J. Sep. 19, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 84 (D.N.J. Sep. 19, 2023)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
Madeline Cox Arleo Oral Argument Requested Motion Day: October 16, 2023
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 16, 2023, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned attorneys for Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin, and Doug Lumish (“the Latham Defendants”), shall move before The Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King, Jr. Building & U.S.
Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street Room 4015, Newark, New Jersey 07101, to dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6) (the “Latham Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”).
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this Motion to Dismiss, the Latham Defendants will rely upon the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Latham Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Declaration of William Trousdale, and the exhibits thereto, as well as any submissions offered on reply.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is also submitted herewith.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 84 (D.N.J. Sep. 19, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 81 (D.N.J. Sep. 15, 2023)
Motion to File
Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Re: Monib Zirvi, M.D., Ph.D. v. Illumina, Inc. et al. Civil Action No.: 23-1997-MCA/JSA Your Honor Judge Allen, In response to the recent filing by Illumina of its Reply (ECF No. 80) to Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No.78) to the Motion to Illumina’s pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 63), Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Sur-Reply as required by L. Civ.
Pa. Aug. 24, 2000) (applying Rule 8 to conspiracy claim, finding “to survive a motion to dismiss on the conspiracy claim, the plaintiff's complaint need only describe the general composition of the conspiracy, some or all of its broad objectives, and [the] defendant's general role in that conspiracy.”); the Complaint clearly alleges, which for the purposes of evaluating a Motion to dismiss must be taken as true, Illumina, ThermoFisher, and Defendant Attorneys purporting to represent Plaintiff, Dr. Zirvi, engaged in a conspiracy that prevented him from timely bringing his claims related to personal recognition and royalties for the intellectual property described in the Complaint.
Now that Dr. Zirvi has brought claims directed at the orchestrated actions of the Defendants to achieve the outcome in the SDNY litigation as well as other harms bestowed upon Plaintiff by failing to recognize his inventive contribution, Illumina wants the Court to believe all these matters have been decided.
As alleged, this was done in exchange for shared profits between Illumina and ThermoFisher in the “Ampliseq for Illumina” product line, a secret collaboration started during the Cornell litigation, and kept hidden from Cornell and Plaintiff Zirvi, as well as from Judge Stark in a potential fraud on the courts.
After the SDNY case, Illumina and Thermo Fisher, in Zirvi v US NIH, continued to coverup their fraudulent actions and obstruct justice.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 81 (D.N.J. Sep. 15, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 80 (D.N.J. Sep. 11, 2023)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
It makes no legal difference that Plaintiff has attached a new theory of recovery to the same allegations asserted years ago, or that he has added new defendants to the conspiracy claim in this case.
Instead, Illumina said—and Plaintiff agrees—that serial claims are precluded “when they arise from the same transaction, or involve a common nucleus of operative facts.” Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions, Grp., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589, 1594– 95 (2020) (cleaned up).
Plaintiff contends that the “Complaint draws a clear connection between Illumina’s alleged patent infringements, the subsequent market dominance they achieved, the overshadowing of his original contributions, and the financial opportunities he was deprived of as a result.” Opp.
He cites Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Lopez-Freytes, 522 F.3d 136 (1st Cir. 2008), an out-of- circuit case mainly about an abstention doctrine and a constitutional due process claim—a conspiracy claim and its pleading requirements are not mentioned.
from Plaintiff’s own summary of his claim is this: “ThermoFisher, in a conspiracy with attorneys from Akin Gump and Latham Watkins, deliberately excluded [a] seminal patent” and a business agreement “from the court” in the Cornell Delaware case.
Cite Document
ZIRVI v. ILLUMINA, INC. et al, 2:23-cv-01997, No. 80 (D.N.J. Sep. 11, 2023)
+ More Snippets