Legal Opinion
Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided July 13, 2006No. CIV.A. 05-400-JJFPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FARNAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Illumina, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss Czar-nik’s Amended Complaint (D.I.14). For the reasons discussed, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
The following facts are alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint. In May 1998, John Stu-elpnagel and Mark Chee recruited Plaintiff to serve as Illumina’s chief scientific officer. While at Illumina, Plaintiff invented two pieces of technology, one that could be used in decoding arrays to identify bioac-tive agents (“the IBL/DBL invention”), the other…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Kost v. KozakiewiczCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Krauser v. Evollution IP Holdings, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2013
- Pedersen v. GeschwindDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2015
- TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 2007