shutterstock_1871127568_rafapress
rafapress / Shutterstock.com
7 November 2023Big PharmaMarisa Woutersen

Court partially grants disqualification of PacBio’s legal team

Genomics company’s in-house attorney removed from case over links with patent infringement case | Court denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify entire legal team.

A motion to disqualify the in-house legal department at Pacific Biosciences from a case has been partially granted by the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The disqualification motion was filed by Take2 Technologies and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which is involved in a dispute with the genomics lab over a patent related to the study of epigenetics and the detection of modifications in DNA molecules.

Take2 and the university wanted to disqualify the entire in-house team but the court only ordered the disqualification of Yang Tang, who was previously an attorney at Take2’s law firm Perkins Coie for more than seven years.

The parties were also ordered to come to an agreement within 14 days on how to handle the disqualification.

Tang had worked on behalf of Take2 Technologies, including preparation for the present lawsuit against PacBio, and had evaluated the patent-in-suit.

In August 2022, Tang left Perkins Coie to work as a senior IP in-house counsel at PacBio.

Before accepting the position, Tang informed Perkins Coie of her intention not to be involved in any Take2-related matters and consulted with outside counsel.

PacBio also said Tang would not work on or discuss Take2 matters and would not receive any fees related to the case.

Despite these measures, a conflict of interest was raised by Take2 in December 2022 after it filed an infringement action against PacBio.

PacBio's legal counsel reaffirmed the screens in place and received no further complaints regarding their adequacy.

However, the conflict resurfaced when PacBio moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.

As a result, on September 20, 2023, Take2 filed a motion to disqualify PacBio's in-house legal department, leading to yesterday’s decision to disqualify Yang.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Big Pharma
13 May 2021   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a district court jury decision that found Pacific Biosciences’ DNA sequencing patents—which it had asserted against Oxford Nanopore Technologies—were invalid.
Asia
22 May 2020   Taiwanese biotechnology company Personal Genomics is using California’s Pacific Biosciences for patent infringement in China.

More on this story

Big Pharma
13 May 2021   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a district court jury decision that found Pacific Biosciences’ DNA sequencing patents—which it had asserted against Oxford Nanopore Technologies—were invalid.
Asia
22 May 2020   Taiwanese biotechnology company Personal Genomics is using California’s Pacific Biosciences for patent infringement in China.

More on this story

Big Pharma
13 May 2021   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a district court jury decision that found Pacific Biosciences’ DNA sequencing patents—which it had asserted against Oxford Nanopore Technologies—were invalid.
Asia
22 May 2020   Taiwanese biotechnology company Personal Genomics is using California’s Pacific Biosciences for patent infringement in China.