Case 1:20-cv-01734-JLH Document 268 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15389
`
`
`
`April 9, 2024
`
`
`
`
`Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., No. 20-cv-1646-JLH;
`Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-cv-1734-JLH
`
`Via E-Filing
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`United States District Court
`Federal Building
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order in these actions (No. 20-1646, D.I. 140; No. 20-1734,
`D.I. 101, 261), Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc. (“Ravgen”), Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing
`Solutions, Inc. and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Roche”) and Biora Therapeutics,
`Inc. (“Biora”) hereby submit this Joint Status Letter Regarding Trial Order and Schedule.1
`
`The parties have conferred, and agree that the case involving Roche and the case involving Biora
`will each need jury trial dates. The parties further agree—subject to the Court’s approval—that
`the jury trial in the case involving Roche should occur first (i.e., before the case involving Biora),
`and will take place beginning on October 28, 2024, which the Amended Scheduling Order
`identifies as the date on which the “first 5-day trial” is “to commence.” No. 20-1646, D.I. 140 at
`15, 13.
`
`With respect to the second jury trial involving Biora, Ravgen and Biora jointly request that the
`Court set a trial date in February 2025 (or as soon thereafter as the Court’s schedule will
`accommodate), subject to confirming witness availability, which would permit sufficient time to
`complete pretrial disclosures after the Roche trial.
`
`Finally, Roche and Biora have advanced overlapping inequitable conduct affirmative defenses
`and counterclaims that will need to be resolved by the Court. Roche and Biora jointly request
`that the Court schedule a bench trial for these inequitable conduct claims between the scheduled
`pre-trial conference on October 18, 2024 and commencement of the first jury trial on October 28,
`2024. Ravgen requests that the Court hold the bench trial concurrently with the first jury trial,
`outside the jury’s presence.
`
`Defendants’ Position on Bench Trial Date:
`
`Roche and Biora previously requested the Court to schedule an inequitable conduct trial ahead of
`any jury trials on infringement and validity. See No. 20-1646, D.I. 234 at 1. In response,
`Ravgen agreed that setting the inequitable conduct trial “after the October 18, 2024 pre-trial
`
`1 The Amended Scheduling Order provides that “the parties shall file a joint status letter on April
`9, 2024 indicating the parties’ positions regarding which of the above-captioned cases will need
`trial dates and the order in which the cases should be tried.” No. 20-1646, D.I. 140 at 11 n.16(f).
`
`9 1 9 N . M A R K E T S T R E E T , 1 2 T H F L O O R , W I L M I N G T O N , D E 1 9 8 0 1
`P H O N E : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 0 · F A X : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 1 · W W W . F A R N A N L A W . C O M
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01734-JLH Document 268 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15390
`
`conference and before the October 28, 2024 trial date” is a “sensible approach.” No. 20-1646,
`D.I. 259 at 11. Further, setting a standalone trial on the bench issues—rather than having the
`bench trial interspersed with the jury trial in the Roche case—is appropriate as both Roche and
`Biora will be involved in the bench trial.
`
`Ravgen’s Position on Bench Trial Date:
`
`The Court previously rejected Defendants’ attempt to set an early, separate bench trial to
`prioritize their defenses. Oral Order, No. 20-1646, D.I. 285. Ravgen requested then that “any
`such bench trial should occur at the same time as a jury trial, as courts routinely do when there
`are equitable issues.” No. 20-1646, D.I. 259 at 11. This approach permits the Court to draw on
`the jury trial record and minimizes the need for duplicative testimony. It would also mitigate the
`inconvenience of bringing the same fact and expert witnesses to testify three times, during the
`week of October 21 (for the requested separate bench trial), the week of October 28 (the first-
`scheduled jury trial), and whenever the second jury trial involving Biora is to be held.
`
`Defendants’ quotation from Ravgen’s brief was discussing the schedule set by the Quest court in
`the Central District of California, and what that would look like if transposed to this schedule.
`But Ravgen’s request then was the same: the bench trial should be held concurrently. D.I. 259 at
`1 (“If a bench trial… is ultimately needed… it should be conducted at the same time as any jury
`trial to resolve both sides’ claims concurrently when the Court, witnesses, and counsel are
`available for trial.”), 11, 12 (“Factual issues of materiality and validity might overlap, and at
`least one witness, the inventor Dr. Ravinder Dhallan, would likely be testifying in both the jury
`trial and bench trial. Thus, it will be most efficient to conduct the bench trial concurrently with
`any jury trial, when the witnesses, counsel, and the Court will all be present and available.”).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`
`Brian E. Farnan
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (Via E-Filing)
`
`
`2
`
`