IP Verse

Scale Biosciences, Inc. V. Parse Biosciences, Inc. - 1:22-cv-01597

Explore the details of the Scale Biosciences, Inc. V. Parse Biosciences, Inc. case under case number 1:22-cv-01597 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:22-cv-01597
Filing Date
Dec 14, 2022
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
The University of Washington -
Parse Biosciences, Inc. -
Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. -
Scale Biosciences, Inc. -

Patents Involved in the Case

There is a single patent involved in this case.

Application NumberPatent Number
-US11634752B2

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

May 27, 2025ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. [285), in which it seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. ("Roche") to provide certain discovery regarding its document preservation, collection, and production process, (D.I. 290, ex. N), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 290 ; D.I. 295 ; D.I. 335 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons and in the manner that follows: (1) In seeking the requested relief, Defendant is asking for “discovery on discovery”; our Court has noted that such discovery is typically not permitted unless the movant makes a “threshold showing that significant, relevant, and non-cumulative information has been withheld or overlooked” in the case. Brit. Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/Interactivecorp, Civil Action No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 1043974, at *7 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).; (2) Here, Defendant has made such a showing, where: (a) As of May 30, 2024, Roche had produced only 19 e-mails to Defendant in this case. (D.I. 290, ex. A at 3; id., ex. C at 1) Defendant suggested to Roche at that time that in light of this sparse e-mail production, something must be off with Roche’s document collection procedures. (Id., ex. A at 3) But Roche wrote back saying that the paucity of e-mails it had produced was explainable and was due to the specifics of its document retention policy. (Id., ex. C at 1) There is no indication in the record that Roche then did anything more to look into why it had produced only 19 e-mails at the time—including whether this might’ve been due to a problem with its document search or collection efforts.; (b) After an August 2024 deposition of a Roche Rule 30(b)(6) witness, who stated that he did not know when Roche put a litigation hold in place in this case, (id., ex. G at 174-75), Defendant asked Roche to provide that date, (id., ex. H at 19, 29, 31). Roche fought doing so for months, claiming that the date itself was privileged information. (Id., ex. H at 12, 17, 19, 28, 30) Then in December 2024, Roche disclosed that the litigation hold had not been put into place until November 2023—approximately 11 months after this case was filed. (Id., ex. H at 12) Roche acknowledges that its failure to issue a litigation hold until November 2023 was an “error[.]” (D.I. 295 at 1); (c) After Defendant sought additional information about Roche’s document preservation efforts, in February 2025, Roche told Defendant for the first time that it had made another “error[]”—i.e., it had now identified additional e-mail repositories that had never been reviewed in the case, but should have been. (D.I. 290, ex. H at 8; D.I. 295 at 1) (Thus, Roche’s prior statement about how the reason it had only produced 19 e-mails was due to the specifics of its document retention policy appears to have not been entirely correct.). As of the time of the briefing for this Motion, Roche was still in the process of producing responsive e-mails, even though fact discovery has long closed. (D.I. 295 at 2; D.I. 335, ex. P at 1); and (d) Even in light of Roche’s late production of these e-mails, there is still an open question as to whether Roche has appropriately retained (and produced) relevant documents. The answer to this question appears to turn, at least in part, on a dispute about when Roche should have reasonably anticipated litigation in this matter. Roche suggests that a reasonable party in its position would not have foreseen litigation until this case was filed in December 2022, or perhaps no earlier than June 2022, (D.I. 295 at 2); Defendant argues the proper date goes back to 2021 (and that if this is correct, that means that Roche’s late litigation hold resulted in relevant documents being needlessly deleted), (D.I. 290 at 2; D.I. 335 at 1). The Court is not resolving that “anticipation of litigation” issue now. But it notes that Defendant has produced some evidence that seems to support its position—such as Roche privilege logs that appear to disclose that employees of Roche and Plaintiff Scale Biosciences, Inc. were discussing the prospect of “this litigation” as early as November 2021. (D.I. 290, ex. L at 72, 92); (3) Everybody makes mistakes, and there is not necessarily anything nefarious about what has happened here. Maybe, in the end, Defendant will have received from Roche all of the documents it is entitled to in discovery. But there can be no dispute that Roche’s document collection efforts (and its explanations regarding the same) have been delayed, shifting and error-filled—and that there is still real question about whether Roche retained and produced all of the documents it should have in this matter. Therefore, and for the reasons set out above, the required threshold showing has been made.; and (4) In its briefing, Roche did not specifically object to any particular form of relief sought in Defendant’s proposed order, (D.I. 290, ex. N), and so the Court has no basis to determine that any item requested therein is inappropriate. Thus, Roche shall provide the requested information to Defendant no later than 21 days from today’s date. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/27/2025. (sam) (Entered: 05/28/2025)PACER Document
May 28, 2025Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Kelly E. Farnan regarding June 12, 2025 Summary Judgment Hearing - re 411 Oral Order,,,,. (Farnan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/28/2025)PACER Document
Jun 6, 2025MOTION for Exemption from Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Scale Biosciences, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Metzler, Sara) (Entered: 06/06/2025)PACER Document
Jun 6, 2025NOTICE OF SERVICE of Parse Biosciences, Inc.'s Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to Scale Biosciences, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1 - 97) filed by Parse Biosciences, Inc..(Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 06/06/2025)PACER Document
Jun 9, 2025ORDER granting D.I. 414 Motion for Exemption from Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Scale Biosciences, Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/09/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/09/2025)PACER Document
Jun 11, 2025MOTION for Exemption from Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Farnan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/11/2025)PACER Document
Jun 11, 2025ORDER granting D.I. 417 MOTION for Exemption from Standing Order on Personal Devices - filed by Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/11/2025. (sam) (Entered: 06/11/2025)PACER Document
Jun 16, 2025Official Transcript of Summary Judgement/Daubert Motion hearing held on 06-12-25 before Judge Burke. Court Reporter Stacy Ingram,Email: [email protected]. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/7/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/15/2025. (Ingram, Stacy) (Entered: 06/16/2025)PACER Document
Jun 12, 2025Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - Motion Hearing held on 6/12/25. The Court heard argument regarding Plaintiff Scale Biosciences, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,634,752, (D.I. 296 ), and Defendant Parse Biosciences, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment #1, (D.I. 314 ). The Court took the motions under advisement. Appearances: K. Farnan, S. Metzler, S. Rabinowitz, C. Loughran, S. Duncan Smith, E. Frank and A. Bonzo for Plaintiff Scale Biosciences, Inc.; K. Farnan, S. Metzler and B. Ozdamar for Plaintiff Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc.; K. Pascale, B. Pickard, T. Powers and B. Gleason for Defendant Parse Biosciences, Inc. (Court Reporter: Stacy Ingram; Clerk: E. Rose)(sam)PACER Document
Jun 20, 2025CORRECTING ENTRY: Per Counsel's request, D.I. 420 has been removed for refiling to reflect the correct party that filed it. (mpb)PACER Document
Jun 20, 2025NOTICE OF SERVICE of Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc.s Response to the Courts May 28, 2025 Order (D.I. 412) filed by Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc..(Metzler, Sara) (Entered: 06/20/2025)PACER Document
Apr 24, 2025REDACTED VERSION of 399 Declaration, of Lior Pachter, Ph.D. by Parse Biosciences, Inc., The University of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through M)(Pascale, Karen) (Entered: 04/24/2025)Attachment