`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`NATERA, INC.,
`
`V.
`
`CAREDX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 20-38-CFC-CJB
`CONSOLIDATED
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Pending before me is Natera's Motion for Summary Judgment #1 of
`
`Infringement of the #724 and #544 Patents by Defendant's Accused Products. D.I.
`
`246. In Natera's Concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed in Support
`
`ofNatera's motion, Natera states that the accused AlloSure and AlloSeq tests
`
`perform all elements of the #724 patent claims, including "determining the most
`
`likely genetic data for DNA from the first individual .... " D.I. 248 at 1, 3-4. In
`
`support of this statement of fact, Natera relies on the Opening Expert Report of
`
`Professor John Quackenbush, Ph.D, in which Dr. Quackenbush states that
`
`"AlloSure estimates the percentage of (donor-derived) cfDNA. This estimate
`
`assumes that at each SNP classified as recipient homozygous, most likely the
`
`[alternate] alleles are coming from the donor, i.e., the claimed first individual."
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 401 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 25386
`
`D.I. 263-24 ,r 206 (quotations and citations omitted). CareDx denies this asse1ied
`
`fact and cites record evidence that appears on its face to contradict Dr.
`
`Quackenbush's expert report. See D.I. 318 at 2 ("The Accused Products do not
`
`determine genetic data for DNA from a 'first individual' i.e., an organ donor."). In
`
`support of this counterstatement of fact, CareDx relies on the Declaration of Robert
`
`Woodward, in which Woodward states that " [i]n AlloSure and AlloSeq cfDNA,
`
`however, there is never any attempt to check if the donor genotypes actually match
`
`the expected distribution, because the genetic data for the donor is simply never
`
`estimated." D.I. 318-2 ,r 16 (emphasis added).
`
`Because there is a disputed fact that Natera has said is material to its motion
`
`for summary judgment, I will deny the motion. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`
`Inc. , 4 77 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (holding that summary judgment will not lie if there
`
`is a genuine dispute about a material fact) .
`
`WHEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Eleventh day of December in 2023,
`
`Natera's Motion for Summary Judgment # 1 of Infringement of the #724 and #544
`
`Patents by Defendant's Accused Products (D.1. 246) is DENIED.
`
`CHI@?JUDGE
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
