Parse Biosciences Inc

General

Total Cases9

Active Cases4

Patents--

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

parsebiosciences.com

split-biosciences

parse-biosciences

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L4

E

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
09/13/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] DECLARATION re [260] Opening Brief in Support, of Derek C. Walter by Parse Biosciences, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A, # [2] Exhibit B, # [3] Exhibit C, # [4] Exhibit D, # [5] Exhibit E, # [6] Exhibit F, # [7] Exhibit G, # [8] Exhibit H, # [9] Exhibit I, # [10] Exhibit J, # [11] Exhibit K, # [12] Exhibit L, # [13] Exhibit M, # [14] Exhibit N, # [15] Exhibit O, # [16] Exhibit P, # [17] Exhibit Q, # [18] Exhibit R, # [19] Exhibit S, # [20] Exhibit T, # [21] Exhibit U, # [22] Exhibit V, # [23] Exhibit W, # [24] Exhibit X, # [25] Exhibit Y, # [26] Exhibit Z, # [27] Exhibit AA)(Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2024) [SEALED] DECLARATION re [260] Opening Brief in Support, of Derek C. Walter by Parse Biosciences, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A, # [2] Exhibit B, # [3] Exhibit C, # [4] Exhibit D, # [5] Exhibit E, # [6] Exhibit F, # [7] Exhibit G, # [8] Exhibit H, # [9] Exhibit I, # [10] Exhibit J, # [11] Exhibit K, # [12] Exhibit L, # [13] Exhibit M, # [14] Exhibit N, # [15] Exhibit O, # [16] Exhibit P, # [17] Exhibit Q, # [18] Exhibit R, # [19] Exhibit S, # [20] Exhibit T, # [21] Exhibit U, # [22] Exhibit V, # [23] Exhibit W, # [24] Exhibit X, # [25] Exhibit Y, # [26] Exhibit Z, # [27] Exhibit AA)(Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] STATEMENT re [259] MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Preclude Expert Testimony Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Motions for Summary Judgment by Parse Biosciences, Inc.. (Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re [259] MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Preclude Expert Testimony filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 9/27/2024. (Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	MOTION for Summary Judgment , MOTION to Preclude Expert Testimony - filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc.. (Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/11/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	NOTICE of of Intent to Redact August 28, 2024 Hearing Transcript by 10X Genomics, Inc., The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University re 255 Transcript, (Clark, Cameron) (Entered: 09/11/2024)
09/06/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove John J. Nolan as co-counsel.. (Farnan, Brian) (Entered: 09/06/2024)
09/06/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding D.I. 254 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for dispositive and Daubert motions to 9/13/2024 is GRANTED. Ordered by Judge Joel H Slomsky on 09/06/2024. (vfm) (Entered: 09/06/2024)
09/05/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	Official Transcript of Motion Hearing held on 08/28/2024 before Judge Joel H. Slomsky. Court Reporter/Transcriber Neal R. Gross. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 9/26/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/7/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2024. (vfm) (Entered: 09/05/2024) Official Transcript of Motion Hearing held on 08/28/2024 before Judge Joel H. Slomsky. Court Reporter/Transcriber Neal R. Gross. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 9/26/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/7/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2024. (vfm) (Entered: 09/05/2024)
09/05/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties' motions for claim construction ("motions"), (D.I. 78 ; D.I. 79 ), the Court now addresses the construction of term 5 (i.e., the fifth term that was to be argued at the Markman hearing, though because the parties ran out of time, it ended up being submitted on the papers), which is the last term that the Court must address in order to fully resolve the motions: "A method of cell-specifically labeling RNA molecules within a plurality of cells." This term is found in Defendant's 065, 856 and 355 patents. (D.I. 101 at 52) As an initial matter, the Court notes that it will not consider arguments made for the first time in reply or sur-reply briefs (particularly Defendant's argument about the claims' preambles not being limiting). (Id. at 61) With that said, the Court now addresses the parties' two main disputes: (1) their dispute about how the labels at issue are generated or created, wherein Plaintiffs propose that the labels must be the product of "multiple rounds" of appending "well-specific tags," and Defendant disagrees that this is a requirement; and (2) their dispute about whether the claimed tagging methods take place only "within intact cells" (Plaintiffs' proposal) or simply "within a plurality of cells" (Defendant's proposal)â€”with there being no dispute that an "intact" cell is one that has not been lysed, (see id. at 62-64; D.I. 102, ex. 24 at 83-84). Plaintiffs argue that both of their proposals should be adopted, in light of the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer. See Comput. Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution by precluding patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings clearly and unmistakably disclaimed during prosecution.") (internal quotation marks, citations and brackets omitted); see also (D.I. 101 at 55-61). The Court agrees. That is because during prosecution of the 065 patent, in an effort to overcome rejection of the claims, the patentee clearly and repeatedly stated that the cell-specific labels described in the patent's claims were "the product of multiple rounds of appending well-specific tags to cDNAs within each cell[,]" (D.I. 77, ex. 13F at PARSE0000964 (emphasis added); see also id. at PARSE0000965, PARSE0000968, PARSE0000970), and emphasized that such tagging occurs with regard to "intact cells" or "unlysed cells[,]" (see id. at PARSE0000968, PARSE0000970 (certain emphasis added, certain emphasis in original); see also id. at PARSE0000964). Cf. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Indeed, as if to hammer home the point, the patentee noted that these were some of the "key features of the claimed methods[.]" (D.I. 77, ex. 13F at PARSE0000964) Despite Defendant's argument to the contrary, (D.I. 101 at 63), the Court sees no reason why any other aspect of the patent claims' language would directly contradict or conflict with Plaintiffs' proposed construction. And there is no question here that if disclaimer was made as to the claims of the 065 patent (as it was), then it should also apply as to the use of the same term in the 856 and 355 patents. (Id. at 61 (citing Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007)) For all of these reasons, the Court will construe this term to mean "A method of generating labels that identify the cell of origin of RNA molecules, where the cell-specific labels are the product of multiple rounds of appending well-specific tags to cDNAs within intact cells." Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/05/2024) ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties' motions for claim construction ("motions"), (D.I. 78 ; D.I. 79 ), the Court now addresses the construction of term 5 (i.e., the fifth term that was to be argued at the Markman hearing, though because the parties ran out of time, it ended up being submitted on the papers), which is the last term that the Court must address in order to fully resolve the motions: "A method of cell-specifically labeling RNA molecules within a plurality of cells." This term is found in Defendant's 065, 856 and 355 patents. (D.I. 101 at 52) As an initial matter, the Court notes that it will not consider arguments made for the first time in reply or sur-reply briefs (particularly Defendant's argument about the claims' preambles not being limiting). (Id. at 61) With that said, the Court now addresses the parties' two main disputes: (1) their dispute about how the labels at issue are generated or created, wherein Plaintiffs propose that the labels must be the product of "multiple rounds" of appending "well-specific tags," and Defendant disagrees that this is a requirement; and (2) their dispute about whether the claimed tagging methods take place only "within intact cells" (Plaintiffs' proposal) or simply "within a plurality of cells" (Defendant's proposal)â€”with there being no dispute that an "intact" cell is one that has not been lysed, (see id. at 62-64; D.I. 102, ex. 24 at 83-84). Plaintiffs argue that both of their proposals should be adopted, in light of the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer. See Comput. Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution by precluding patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings clearly and unmistakably disclaimed during prosecution.") (internal quotation marks, citations and brackets omitted); see also (D.I. 101 at 55-61). The Court agrees. That is because during prosecution of the 065 patent, in an effort to overcome rejection of the claims, the patentee clearly and repeatedly stated that the cell-specific labels described in the patent's claims were "the product of multiple rounds of appending well-specific tags to cDNAs within each cell[,]" (D.I. 77, ex. 13F at PARSE0000964 (emphasis added); see also id. at PARSE0000965, PARSE0000968, PARSE0000970), and emphasized that such tagging occurs with regard to "intact cells" or "unlysed cells[,]" (see id. at PARSE0000968, PARSE0000970 (certain emphasis added, certain emphasis in original); see also id. at PARSE0000964). Cf. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Indeed, as if to hammer home the point, the patentee noted that these were some of the "key features of the claimed methods[.]" (D.I. 77, ex. 13F at PARSE0000964) Despite Defendant's argument to the contrary, (D.I. 101 at 63), the Court sees no reason why any other aspect of the patent claims' language would directly contradict or conflict with Plaintiffs' proposed construction. And there is no question here that if disclaimer was made as to the claims of the 065 patent (as it was), then it should also apply as to the use of the same term in the 856 and 355 patents. (Id. at 61 (citing Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007)) For all of these reasons, the Court will construe this term to mean "A method of generating labels that identify the cell of origin of RNA molecules, where the cell-specific labels are the product of multiple rounds of appending well-specific tags to cDNAs within intact cells." Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/05/2024)
09/04/24	10X Genomics Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01117 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for dispositive and Daubert motions to 9/13/2024 - filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc.. (Farnan, Brian) (Entered: 09/04/2024)