I think it means that Quake's prior patent application for a patent on a process for MPSS, massively parrallel shotgun sequencing talks about targeted sequencing, not shotgun (random) sequencing and some of his witnesses saying that Quake's patent described completely a specific embodiment of the process (as required) was crapola because the things they said were needed to perform the process didn't exist at the time he filed his application. If Quake's patent didn't include a specific embodiment - then it can't be considered first in line. Remember this has nothing to do with the 540 patent, although MPSS appears to be a necessary process to carry out the 540 patent. Namaste or someone with a better patent background can probably provide a more scholarly discussion, but that's my take.
The cross motions for summary judgement were heard 10 days ago. The continuance motion relates to the SQNM's Preliminary Injunction motion, so the PI won't come up for consideration until 10 months after the circuit court reversed the trial court's original denial of the injunction. Holding SQNM stock is just tiresome. They have no sense of urgency.
I certainly didn't suggest that the injunction is pending, just a ruling on the summary judgment motion. The preliminary injunction hearing isn't until January 17, 2014.
They are facts, do what you want with them. I have properly caveated them, but to say they are just notes in a file is inaccurate.
Chris - I assume you are looking at the minutes, specifically the time for future events/hearings. No, they have nothing to do with when she rules. They likely tie back to items already scheduled on the Court's docket, but since they don't provide a date, only a time, they are pretty meaningless. There is another status conference set for 11/1/13, if she doesn't rule before then, she will almost certainly do something to coincide with that hearing.
It might not be legally binding on them as non-parties to this litigation, but the liklihood that the same judge hearing the same legal issue (not factual issue) would rule differently in their lawsuits is extremely low. Remember this ruling (assuming the tentative ruling holds) is only that the 540 patent is a patentable subject matter. However, that is a pretty big issue in all of these lawsuits.
The article on Friday's hearing that has been mentioned here was written by a stringer without a law background. It was a well written, even handed article. In it, the author mentioned that Judge Illston said she was leaning toward SQNM's position. I admit that I took this as a positive, but without context, I certainly didn't take this as evidence that SQNM would win the MSJ hearing. After all, Judges play devils advocate all the time. A stray remark like that at the outset of a hearing doesn't mean that much. That is the context that is missing.
Yesterday, the courtroom minutes from the MSJ hearing were docketed. These are notes from the hearing kept by the Courtroom deputy. For those unfamiliar, the courtroom deputy is a clerk assigned to a particular Judge. They are the gatekeeper for most federal judges, they manage the court's calendar, they call the docket, they manage trial exhibits etc. They also normally keep the minutes of hearings. Illston's minutes are typically very circumspect. I uploaded them on the private board, here you will either have to find them on PACER or take my word for it. They are circumspect, but they reference the Ariosa MSJ with the note - "Tentatively denied" and the SQNM MSJ with the notation - "Tentatively Granted".
So, at the end of the hearing the courtroom deputy noted that SQNM had won. She's not the judge and the judge could change her mind in chambers, but this is the context missing from the article. This would be huge for SQNM.
You are kind of a one trick pony with the Mayo case, you might try reading Diehr too. It is also S. Ct. authority.
By claim construction I assume you are referring to the Markman hearing and not whether the 540 patent as a whole will stand. I offer no opinion either way on patent validity. As far as the construction of terms - I think Illston will define the disputed terms exactly as the FC instructed her to. I can't imagine any new evidence or argument at the Markman hearing that would compel a different result. Keep in mind that there are terms in the Verinata litigation regarding the competing massively parallel sequencing patents that were not at issue in the FC opinion.
Not sure what "other cases" you are referring to. The Ariosa, Natera and Verinata cases are all being heard by Judge Illston, but they are separate lawsuits. If she decides the MSJ hearing in SQNM's favor - ie that the subject matter of the 540 patent is patentable, her ruling in the Ariosa case is not legally binding in the other lawsuits. However, the liklihood that she would rule differently on what is almost entirely an issue of law is highly unlikely. If you are referring the the PTAB proceeding btw SQNM and Verinata, this MSJ hearing has no bearing on those proceedings. That administrative proceeding relates soley to patent priority between competing massively parallel sequencing patents, not the 540 patent. If you are referring to the IPR proceedings btw SQNM and Ariosa, the same is true. As I read the issue in the IPR case is Ariosa's allegation that 540 was anticiapted by prior art. That is not at issue in the Ariosa v. SQNM litigation.
This hearing was on the cross motions for summary judgment. If the Court grants Ariosa's MSJ it would be conclusive on all issues in the lawsuit except for the determination of an award of costs and fees to Ariosa from SQNM. If the 540 patent is not patentable subject matter, the patent would be invalid.
If the Court grants SQNM's MSJ it would only be a partial summary judgment. The Court will have ruled that 540 is patentable subject matter and that will be the law of this case. It might not be legally binding on the Verinata and Natera cases, but the liklihood that that same judge decides the same legal issue differently in related cases is unlikely. This would still leave Ariosa and SQNM fighting over whether Ariosa is practicing SQNM's patent, the amount of damages and the entitlement to preliminary and permenant injunctive relief and perhaps other issues in the lawsuit that don't come to mind.
The direct answer to you question is a SQNM win would have no direct economic value to SQNM. but it would be immensly positive.
If SQNM ultimately takes a judgment against Ariosa, I suspect Ariosa would not likely be able to pay, but as others have pointed out, that isn't waht this suit is all about. Its about eliminating a competitor who is competing against them with stolen intellectual property.
She appears to be a judge that prepares in advance of a hearing. She has ruled on a number of motions prior to a hearing, dispensing with the need for a hearing. Anything is possible. As I prefaced my opinion, she will rule when she rules.
Testimony is never taken in a summary judgment hearing. The court rules on the pleadings and arguments. She has this "under advisement" and will rule when she rules. She doesn't appear to keep things under advisement long (based on an admittedly small sample size). My guess - from 2 weeks to a month. Remember, this will not be a ruling on the injunction, that hearing is set on 1/17/14. This is just on summary judgment.
By that day I meant this friday, although it applies to the January hearing too. Doubtful SQNM seeks to expedite the injunction since the January hearing was a court order on SQNM's motion to set the injunction hearing. They asked for December and got it set in January. Assuming they get past Friday's hearing, at least they can put additional evidence in on the grounds for an injunction and not rest on the evidence they used over a year ago.
The 10/11 hearings are on the cross motions for summary judgment on patentability. The injunction hearing is set in January. It is doubtful that the Court will rule that day. She will likely take it under advisement, for how long? Who knows, but she doesn't seem to sit on things very long.
I have no idea whether this means anything to SQNM's bottom line, but at least I have an idea - SQNM's Mass Array is MALDI-TOF. Your name reveals a lot about you. Why don't you get a clue?
From SQNM web site -
MassARRAY Analyzer 4 Specifications
Detection method - Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF)