Scale Biosciences Inc

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

scale-biosciences

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
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	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Parse Biosciences, Inc.'s and University of Washington's Supplemental Final Infringement Contentions filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc., The University of Washington.(Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 09/04/2024)
09/04/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties' motions for claim construction, (D.I. 78 ; D.I. 79 ), the Court now addresses the construction of the term "assayable polymer subunit (APS) / assayable oligonucleotide subunits," a term that was not argued at the Markman hearing. The briefing as to this term (as with that regarding some prior Markman disputes) was not as helpful as it might have been, (see D.I. 119 ; D.I. 121 ; D.I. 126 ), in that in it, as the parties themselves noted, they at times seemed to be "misaligned" or to be "side-step[ping]" the need to make clear statements about key disputes, (D.I. 101 at 41-42). Plaintiffs' proposed construction was "component(s) of a molecular complex that provide a package of information" and Defendant's was "detectable components such as polymer subunits or small molecules that can be linked to each other within a COB [(cell originating barcode)]." (Id. at 37) The Court, doing its best to identify the key issues, determines that the term needs no further construction (at least for now) and should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. In support, it concludes the following: (1) To the extent the parties are disagreeing about whether it is appropriate to refer to APSs as providing a "package of information"(Plaintiffs) or as "detectable" components (Defendant), (id. at 42), the Court will adopt neither of the proposals. It is not clear that there is actually a live dispute about the use of either phrase (as Defendant says only that the "package" phraseology is not "clear"â€”not that it is wrongâ€”and Plaintiffs do not seem to dispute that ABSs must be "detectable"). (Id. at 41-42) And so the Court is not yet convinced that construing the term to include one or both phrases is necessary or would resolve a dispute about claim scope.; (2) To the extent that the parties disagree over Defendant's addition of "such as polymer subunits or small molecules," (id. at 42), the Court also declines to include that phraseology in a construction. It is undisputed that this proposal is simply meant to provide non-limiting examples as to what an APS can be, (id. at 38 (citing 442 patent, col. 4:23-24); id. at 42), and the Court sees no need to unduly highlight certain exemplary APSs at the expense of others in a way that might confuse or mislead the jury, see 511 Innovations, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-1524-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 6403156, at 13 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2016); Unither Pharma, Inc. v. Daily Wellness Co., Nos. C 02-05284 JW, 2005 WL 6220096, at 20 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2005).; and (3) To the extent the parties are disagreeing over whether APSs must be linked to each other within a COB, (D.I. 101 at 42), the Court is not convinced that they must be, based on the record before it. And so it will not adopt Defendant's proposed "can be linked to each other within a COB" language. Despite Plaintiffs raising the issue, (id. at 38-39), Defendant never explained how this proposed language (with its use of the words "can be") would mandate APS linkage (which seems to be Defendant's intent). But even if Defendant's proposal could be read to have that impact, the Court cannot conclude that such a limitation would be appropriate. Plaintiffs argue to the contrary that "APSs need not be linked to each other[,]" (id. at 39; see also id. at 41-42), and in support, they note that the patent seems to repeatedly describe this type of linkage as a possibility but not a requirement. (442 patent, col. 4:61-63 ("In some embodiments, the APSs in a first set is linkable to the APSs in a second set.") (emphasis added) (cited in D.I. 101 at 39); 442 patent at FIG. 2; id., col. 13:34-36 (noting that Figure 2, which shows APSs linked together in a COB, is simply "one embodiment") (emphasis added) (cited in D.I. 101 at 42)) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/04/2024) ORAL ORDER: With regard to the parties' motions for claim construction, (D.I. 78 ; D.I. 79 ), the Court now addresses the construction of the term "assayable polymer subunit (APS) / assayable oligonucleotide subunits," a term that was not argued at the Markman hearing. The briefing as to this term (as with that regarding some prior Markman disputes) was not as helpful as it might have been, (see D.I. 119 ; D.I. 121 ; D.I. 126 ), in that in it, as the parties themselves noted, they at times seemed to be "misaligned" or to be "side-step[ping]" the need to make clear statements about key disputes, (D.I. 101 at 41-42). Plaintiffs' proposed construction was "component(s) of a molecular complex that provide a package of information" and Defendant's was "detectable components such as polymer subunits or small molecules that can be linked to each other within a COB [(cell originating barcode)]." (Id. at 37) The Court, doing its best to identify the key issues, determines that the term needs no further construction (at least for now) and should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. In support, it concludes the following: (1) To the extent the parties are disagreeing about whether it is appropriate to refer to APSs as providing a "package of information"(Plaintiffs) or as "detectable" components (Defendant), (id. at 42), the Court will adopt neither of the proposals. It is not clear that there is actually a live dispute about the use of either phrase (as Defendant says only that the "package" phraseology is not "clear"â€”not that it is wrongâ€”and Plaintiffs do not seem to dispute that ABSs must be "detectable"). (Id. at 41-42) And so the Court is not yet convinced that construing the term to include one or both phrases is necessary or would resolve a dispute about claim scope.; (2) To the extent that the parties disagree over Defendant's addition of "such as polymer subunits or small molecules," (id. at 42), the Court also declines to include that phraseology in a construction. It is undisputed that this proposal is simply meant to provide non-limiting examples as to what an APS can be, (id. at 38 (citing 442 patent, col. 4:23-24); id. at 42), and the Court sees no need to unduly highlight certain exemplary APSs at the expense of others in a way that might confuse or mislead the jury, see 511 Innovations, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-1524-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 6403156, at 13 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2016); Unither Pharma, Inc. v. Daily Wellness Co., Nos. C 02-05284 JW, 2005 WL 6220096, at 20 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2005).; and (3) To the extent the parties are disagreeing over whether APSs must be linked to each other within a COB, (D.I. 101 at 42), the Court is not convinced that they must be, based on the record before it. And so it will not adopt Defendant's proposed "can be linked to each other within a COB" language. Despite Plaintiffs raising the issue, (id. at 38-39), Defendant never explained how this proposed language (with its use of the words "can be") would mandate APS linkage (which seems to be Defendant's intent). But even if Defendant's proposal could be read to have that impact, the Court cannot conclude that such a limitation would be appropriate. Plaintiffs argue to the contrary that "APSs need not be linked to each other[,]" (id. at 39; see also id. at 41-42), and in support, they note that the patent seems to repeatedly describe this type of linkage as a possibility but not a requirement. (442 patent, col. 4:61-63 ("In some embodiments, the APSs in a first set is linkable to the APSs in a second set.") (emphasis added) (cited in D.I. 101 at 39); 442 patent at FIG. 2; id., col. 13:34-36 (noting that Figure 2, which shows APSs linked together in a COB, is simply "one embodiment") (emphasis added) (cited in D.I. 101 at 42)) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 9/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 09/04/2024)
08/28/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs Final Infringement Contentions filed by Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., Scale Biosciences, Inc..(Metzler, Sara) (Entered: 08/28/2024)
08/28/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Parse Biosciences, Inc.'s and University of Washington's Final Infringement Contentions [Appendices A - C are Highly Confidential Outside Attorneys Eyes Only] filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc., The University of Washington.(Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 08/28/2024)
08/26/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, re 236 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to exchange final infringement contentions to through and including August 28, 2024 filed by Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., Scale Biosciences, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mpb) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/23/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to exchange final infringement contentions to through and including August 28, 2024 - filed by Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., Scale Biosciences, Inc.. (Metzler, Sara) (Entered: 08/23/2024)
08/20/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of 1) Parse Biosciences, Inc.'s and University of Washington's Privilege Log with List of Attorneys; and 2) University of Washington's UW-Trapnell Privilege Log with List of Attorneys; filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc., The University of Washington.(Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 08/20/2024)
08/15/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Parse Biosciences, Inc.'s First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Scale Biosciences, Inc.'s Fourth Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 23-36) filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc..(Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 08/15/2024)
08/13/24	Scale Biosciences Inc v. Parse Biosciences Inc 1:22-CV-01597 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Jamie Dohopolski as co-counsel.. (Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 08/13/2024)