Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., Docket No. GIC763972 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2002), was an employment law case heard before the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. Dr. Anthony Czarnik filed an employment action against his former employer, Illumina, Inc., for disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. After a trial, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Dr. Czarnik.

–Czarnik comments:  When I joined ILMN the summer of 1998 I’d been living with depression for 10 years, well controlled with meds.  I’d accomplished most of the work in my career during that 10-year period.  Upon starting at ILMN, two things happened: an experiment with a different anti-depressant, and I began working in an environment in which my performance was harshly and continuously criticized.  One part of that was due to the fact that I disclosed my depression to other senior management.  Another part was due to the fact that I would not lie about experimental results.  In April 1999 this eventually led to a ‘nervous breakdown’.  I did change back to the old meds, and my symptoms were once again controlled. But I was now ‘out of the loop’ as part of the C-suite.  After my termination in Sept. 2000, I filed a lawsuit against ILMN claiming discrimination, retaliation after I reported the discrimination, and ‘whistleblowing’ (a critical experiment was reported to have worked even though a supplier had sent us the wrong reagent).  The jury agreed with my position on all three counts. Under oath, John testified that I had contributed nothing to Illumina’s success. I was confident that getting him in front of a jury would make our case, and I was right. Bringing this case through to a jury verdict – regardless of the outcome – is the thing I am proudest of in my life. 

Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., Docket No. D041034 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2006), was an appeal in an employment law case heard before the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division One.  Anthony Czarnik filed an employment action against his former employer, Illumina, Inc., for disability discrimination, retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and wrongful discharge. The company appealed the $7,521,935 judgment against it, based on four arguments: (1) the trial court had erroneously excluded evidence, (2) the court erred in instructing the jury, (3) insufficiency of the evidence, and (4) the damage awards were excessive. The appellate court found the punitive damage to be “grossly excessive” and reduced it by $2,196,935; the court otherwise affirmed the trial court’s judgment and orders. The appellate panel was made up of Judge James Alden McIntyre, who wrote the opinion, and Presiding Judge Judith McConnell and Judge Terry B. O’Rourke, who both concurred with the opinion.

–Czarnik comments:  In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages in lawsuits must not exceed a small multiple of the actual damages (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)).  The California state appellate court simply applied that ruling to my award.  ILMN then wired me $5.9M.

Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., Case No. GIC 842635 (Superior Court of California, County of San Diego), was a breach of contract case before the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. The case was assigned to Judge Patricia A. Y. Cowett. The court overruled Illumina, Inc.’s demurrer to Dr. Anthony Czarnik’s complaint, and the case was resolved without the need for a trial.

–Czarnik comments: Despite stating so in my offer letter, ILMN removed my name from the list of company founders.  We argued that this could harm my future employment prospects.  ILMN made a motion for summary judgment that the Court denied.  ILMN then began to list me as a founder.

Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Del. 2006), was a United States patent law case heard before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its ruling, the district court was the first court to hold that reputational harm could be sufficient to establish standing in an action for correction of named inventor under 35 U.S.C. § 256. That ruling led to a split among district courts that has yet to be definitively resolved.

–Czarnik comments: Despite my name appearing on two patent applications, I was left off the list of inventors in the issued patents.  This proved to be a very interesting problem as the only remedy in a civil suit is money and there was no precedent that being left off as an inventor would cost me money.  We made the argument that the absence of my name on these patents could make it more difficult for me to get another job.  ILMN made a motion for summary judgment that the Court denied.  This set a precedent that being left off a patent might result in financial harm, giving us standing to proceed with the suit.  ILMN put my name back on the patents.