‘Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 13 PagelD #: 29604
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 29604
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`) C.A. No. 20-038 (CFC) (CJB)
`)
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT VERDICT FORM (PHASE ID
`
`NATERA,INC.,
`
`V.
`
`CAREDX,INC.,
`
`Instructions: When answering the following questions and completing this Verdict
`Form,please follow the directions provided and follow the Jury Instructions that you
`have been given. Your answer to each question must be unanimous. Someof the
`questions contain legal terms that are defined and explainedin the Jury Instructions.
`Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
`any legal term that appears in the questions below.
`
`Asused herein:
`
`1. “Natera” refers to Plaintiff Natera, Inc.
`
`2. “CareDx”refers to Defendant CareDx,Inc.
`
`3. The “’544 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 11,111,544.
`
`4. The “’180 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,655,180.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 13 PagelD #: 29605
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 29605
`
`PHASE I - FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT
`
`QUESTION 1:
`
`Did Natera prove, by a preponderanceofthe evidence, that CareDxinfringed
`
`any of the following claims by using AlloSure in the United States?
`
`(“YES”is a finding in favor of Natera, and “NO” is a finding in favor
`
`of CareDx.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 13 PagelD #: 29606
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 29606
`
`QUESTION2:
`
`Did Natera prove, by a preponderanceof the evidence, that CareDx infringed
`
`any of the following claims by using AlloSeq in the United States?
`
`(“YES” is a finding in favor of Natera, and “NO”is a finding in favor
`
`of CareDx.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 4 of 13 PagelD #: 29607
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 29607
`
`QUESTION3
`
`Did CareDx proveby clear and convincing evidencethat the Asserted Claims
`
`of the ’544 patentare not entitled to a priority date of September 22, 2006?
`
`(“YES”is a finding in favor of CareDx, and “NO”is a finding in favor of
`
`Natera)
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 5 of 13 PagelD #: 29608
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 29608
`
`QUESTION 4
`
`Did CareDx prove, by clear and convincing evidence,
`
`that any ofthe
`
`following claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid because they would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`(“YES”is a finding in favor of CareDx, and “NO”is a finding in favor
`
`of Natera.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 6 of 13 PagelD #: 29609
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 29609
`
`QUESTION5:
`
`Did CareDx prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the
`
`following claims are invalid for a lack of adequate written description?
`
`(“YES” is a finding in favor of CareDx, and “NO”is a finding in
`
`favor of Natera.)
`
`
`
`
`[544Patent,Claim21|
`
`
`
`544Patent,Claim26|
`
`a4Patent,Claim27||
`
`
`
`180Patent,Claim1d|
`
`
`[180Patent,Claim15|
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`_ Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 7 of 13 PagelD #: 29610
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 29610
`
`QUESTION6:
`
`Did CareDx prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the individual
`
`limitations of the following claims were well-understood, routine, and conventional,
`
`as of September 22, 2006?
`
`(“YES”is a finding in favor of CareDx, “NO”is a finding in favor of
`
`Natera.)
`
`°544 Patent,
`21[b]
`
`loci.
`
`°544 Patent, Claim|A method for preparing a preparation
`21 [Preamble]
`of amplified DNA derived from a
`biological
`sample
`of
`a_
`second
`individual
`useful
`for determining
`genetic data for DNA froma first
`individual
`in the biological sample,
`the method comprising:
`°544 Patent, Claim|extracting cell-free DNA from the
`21[a]
`biological sample;*
`this
`that
`*The parties do not dispute
`limitation was well-understood, routine, and
`conventional, as of September 22, 2006.
`preparing a preparation of amplified
`DNA by amplifying a plurality of
`target
`loci on the cell-free DNA
`extracted from the biological sample
`to generate amplified DNA;
`analyzing the preparation of amplified
`DNA by sequencing the amplified
`DNA using sequencing-by-synthesis
`to obtain genetic data of the plurality
`of target loci;
`determining the most likely genetic
`data for DNA from thefirst individual
`based on allele frequencies in the
`genetic data at the plurality of target
`
`°544 Patent,
`21[c]
`
`°544 Patent,
`21[d]
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 8 of 13 PagelD #: 29611
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 29611
`
`°544 Patent, Claim|The method of claim 21, wherein the
`amplifying comprises targeted PCR
`and universal PCR.
`°544 Patent, Claim|The method of claim 21, wherein the
`27 sequencing-by-synthesis|comprises
`
`clonal amplification of the amplified
`DNA and measurement of sequences
`
`of the clonally amplified DNA.
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`_Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 9 of 13 PagelD #: 29612
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 29612
`
`QUESTION7:
`
`Did CareDx prove, by clear and convincing evidence,that the limitations of
`
`the following claims as a combination were well-understood,
`
`routine, and
`
`conventional, as of September22, 2006?
`
`(“YES”is a finding in favor of CareDx, “NO”is a finding in favor of
`
`Natera.)
`
`544 Patent, Claim 21
`
`544 Patent, Claim 27
`
`544 Patent, Claim 26
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 10 of 13 PagelD #: 29613
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 29613
`
`QUESTION8:
`
`Did CareDx prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the individual
`
`limitations ofthe following claims were well-understood, routine, and conventional,
`
`as of October 3, 2011?
`
`(“YES”is a finding in favor of CareDx, “NO”is a finding in favor of
`
`Natera.)
`
`of
`
`°180 Patent, Claim|A method for measuring an amount of
`14 [Preamble]
`DNA in a biological
`sample,
`the
`method comprising:
`°180 Patent, Claim] a_targetedperforming PCR
`
`
`
`amplification for more than 100 SNP
`14[a]
`loci on one or more chromosomes
`expected to be disomic in a single
`reaction mixture using more than 100
`PCRprimerpairs, wherein the reaction
`mixture
`comprises
`cell-free DNA
`extracted from a biological sample of a
`subject comprising DNA of mixed
`origin, wherein the DNA of mixed
`origin comprises DNAfrom the subject
`and DNA from a genetically distinct
`individual, wherein neither the subject
`northe genetically distinct individualis
`a fetus, wherein the DNA of mixed
`
`origin comprises DNA_from a
`transplant, and wherein the amplified
`SNP loci comprise SNP loci on at least
`chromosome1, 2, or 3;
`"180 Patent, Claim|measuring a quantity of eachallele at a
`14[b]
`plurality of amplified SNP loci
`that
`comprise an allele present
`in the
`genetically distinct individual but not
`the subject, wherein the quantity
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 11 of 13 PagelD #: 29614
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 29614
`
`individual.
`
`each allele at a plurality of amplified
`SNP loci
`are measured by _high-
`throughput sequencing;
`"180 Patent, Claim|measuring an amountof the DNA from
`14[c]
`the genetically distinct individualin the
`biological sample using the quantity of
`each allele at
`the SNP loci and an
`expected quantity of each allele at the
`SNPloci for different DNA fractions,
`°180 Patent, Claim] wherein the method is_performed
`14[d]
`without prior knowledge of genotypes
`of the genetically distinct individual.
`°180 Patent, Claim |The method of claim 14,
`further
`15
`comprising determining a bias of the
`PCR amplification, and using the bias
`to statistically correct the determined
`quantity of each allele at the plurality
`of SNP loci on the one or more
`chromosomes expected to be disomic
`before the quantity of each allele is
`used to determine the amount of the
`DNA from the genetically distinct
`
`Continue to the next question.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 12 of 13 PagelD #: 29615
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 29615
`
`QUESTION9:
`
`Did CareDx prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the limitations of
`
`the following claims as a combination were well-understood,
`
`routine, and
`
`conventional, as of October 3, 2011?
`
`(“YES” is a finding in favor of CareDx, “NO”is a finding in favor of
`
`Natera.)
`
`
`
`

`

`.
`
`« Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 13 of 13 PagelD #: 29616
`Case 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB Document 460 Filed 01/26/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 29616
`
`UNANIMOUS VERDICT
`
`You have now reachedthe end ofthe verdict form and you should reviewit to ensure
`
`that it accurately reflects your unanimousdeterminations. All jurors should then sign
`
`the verdict form in the space below and notify the Court Security Officer that you
`
`have reacheda verdict. The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form
`
`and bringit to the courtroom with the jury.
`
`Signed:
`
`Forepeisupy
`
`Juror
`
`Juror
`
`Juror
`
`Juror
`
`Juror
`
`Juror
`
`Juror
`
`12
`
`Dated: f Ab Agay
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.