Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., Inc.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND CONSOLIDATE DISCOVERY; GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

I.INTRODUCTION

On November 17, 1995, Plaintiff Gen-Probe, Inc. (“Gen-Probe”) filed an amended complaint naming as Defendants Amoco Corporation (“AC”), Amoco Technology Company (“ATC”), Gene-Trak Systems, Inc. (“Gene-Trak”), Gene-Trak Systems Industrial Diagnostics Corp. (“GTSID”), and Vysis, Inc. (“Vysis”) (collectively, “Amoco”); the Center for Neurologic Study, Richard A. Smith, and Ivor Royston (collectively, “CNS”); and The Regents of the University of California and Eric Stanbridge (collectively, the “Regents”). All defendants are charged with unfair competition, conspiracy to commit unfair competition, and violation of the Cartwright Act (Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 16700-16804). Amoco is charged with directly infringing, contributory infringing, and inducing the infringement of, U.S. Patents-Nos. 4,851,330 (the “ ’330 patent”) and 5,288,-611 (the “ ’611 patent”). CNS and the Regents are charged with inducement of Amoco’s infringement.

Before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion to Expedite and Consolidate Discovery,…