Case 1:20-cv-01734-RGA-JLH Document 13-1 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1208
`
`
`
`April 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-FILING
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`United States District Court
`Federal Building
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`Ravgen, Inc. v. Progenity, Inc., (C.A. No. 20-1734-RGA-JLH)
`
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case submit this joint letter addressing
`disputes in the scheduling order filed herewith. This letter also refers to co-pending matters
`Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 20-1646-RGA-JLH); Ravgen, Inc. v.
`Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 20-1730-RGA-JLH); and Ravgen, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., et
`al. (C.A. No. 20-1644-RGA-JLH) (collectively with
`the above-captioned matter,
`the
`“Litigations”).
`
`1.
`
`Description of the Case
`
`Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for patent infringement in December 2020.
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,332,277 (the “’277 patent”) and 7,727,720 (the
`“’720 patent”). The ’277 and ’720 patents involve technology for the preparation and analysis of
`“free” nucleic acids, including in prenatal and cancer testing applications. Plaintiff’s complaint
`accuses a prenatal test and a monogenetic test offered by Defendant of infringement. Defendant
`asserts, inter alia, defenses of invalidity and non-infringement.
`
`2.
`
`Scheduling Order Disputes
`
`Coordination with Co-Pending Cases
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant agree that some degree of coordination between this and the three
`co-pending actions that involve the same two asserted patents will conserve resources. The
`disputes below generally relate to the appropriate extent and mechanics for that coordination.
`
`Claim Construction Briefing (Section 12) and Depositions (Section 8(e))
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: Ravgen proposes combined, coordinated Markman briefing across
`the co-pending cases to address common questions of law. Each case will construe the same
`language of the same two patents. The terms at issue across the cases will be largely, if not wholly,
`overlapping. Setting limits on such briefing will ensure that the parties focus on the most important
`issues, rather than letting the number of issues Defendants might raise dictate those limits.
`
`Ravgen’s proposal for depositions should be adopted because it accounts for the need to
`take discovery from individual defendants on defendant-specific issues, should such issues arise.
`Ravgen’s proposal is also consistent with its proposal in the co-pending cases and would
`
`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-RGA-JLH Document 13-1 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1209
`
`streamline discovery. In particular, Ravgen’s proposal ensures coordination for discovery across
`the cases and avoids undue burden on witnesses from serial depositions.
`
`Defendant’s Position: With respect to claim construction briefing and deposition limits,
`Progenity believes that some level of coordination across the four cases is appropriate. At this
`stage, it is premature to state the specific contours of such coordination and to set limits on claim
`construction briefing and depositions, as Plaintiff proposes. Plaintiff currently asserts 170 claims
`from two patents. The accused products in each of the Litigations are unique, perform different
`tasks (e.g. prenatal versus cancer screening), and operate differently. Thus, it is likely that Plaintiff
`will assert different claims in the four Litigations. At this stage, none of the Defendants have any
`information regarding the specific claims that will be asserted against them, including the number
`of claims and the extent to which those claims may or may not overlap with the claims asserted
`against other Defendants.
`
`
`Accordingly, while coordination of claim construction and depositions across the four
`Litigations is appropriate, Progenity proposes that the details be resolved through meet and confer
`at a later date when the scope of the case is better defined. Specifically, for claim construction
`briefing, Progenity proposes that the structure and limits on claim construction briefing be
`specified once the joint claim construction chart is submitted, at which point the parties will know
`which claims and claim terms are at issue with respect to each of the Defendants, and the parties
`will have met and conferred regarding narrowing of claims pursuant to § 7(d) of the proposed
`scheduling order. Progenity proposes that limits on depositions should be set after the asserted
`claims have been identified and claim construction briefing has been completed, which will clarify
`the scope of necessary discovery, including the amount of overlap with other Defendants.
`
`Supplementation of Accused Products and Invalidity References (Section 14)
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: Supplementation should occur prior to final infringement and
`invalidity contentions to allow the parties to make decisions for final contentions knowing the
`products and prior art at issue. Defendants’ proposal encourages holding back prior art until after
`final infringement contentions and is inconsistent with the Court’s form Scheduling Order.
`
`Defendant’s Position: Given the uncertainties regarding the scope of the case and the
`asserted claims along with the potential need for coordination among Defendants in the Litigations,
`Progenity requests that the time to supplement invalidity references be consonant with the deadline
`to serve final contentions. This schedule allows Plaintiff time to review the final contentions
`before selecting the narrowed set of claims and does not cause any prejudice to Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff proposes that Progenity be required to identify all prior art references no later than
`14 days following issuance of the claim construction order or a month prior to final invalidity
`contentions, which is the same day that Plaintiff proposes that it supplement its identification of
`accused products. Plaintiff’s proposal that Progenity be locked into all prior art references on the
`same day that Plaintiff announces the full list of accused products is unreasonable and prejudices
`Progenity.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01734-RGA-JLH Document 13-1 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1210
`
`Summary Judgment Briefing (Section 16(d))
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: Consistent with footnote 2 of the Court’s form Scheduling Order,
`Ravgen proposes coordinated briefing and page limits across the co-pending cases. Ravgen’s
`proposal should be adopted in view of the significant overlap in issues—particularly relating to
`invalidity—across the cases. Defendants’ proposal for wholly separate briefing in all cases should
`be rejected because it fails to acknowledge that overlap. Defendants’ proposal would result in
`1,000 pages of briefing (on just two patents) across the four cases. Defendants note that there may
`be case-specific summary judgment issues relating to noninfringement. Ravgen’s proposal
`accounts for that possibility with page limits above those normally imposed in single cases. Should
`the Court find Ravgen’s proposal to be too limited, Defendants’ concerns could also be addressed
`with separate page limits (e.g., 10 pages) for motions relating to noninfringement in each co-
`pending case.
`
`Defendant’s Position: Ravgen proposes that across all four Litigations, the Defendants
`should be collectively limited to 50 pages of summary judgment briefing. This is a highly
`prejudicial and unreasonable proposal that is intentionally calculated to put each Defendant at a
`disadvantage. As noted above, there are unique products accused of infringement in each of the
`Litigations. Under Plaintiff’s dispositive motion proposal, each of the four Defendants would be
`permitted only about 12 pages to present all of their summary judgment positions, including
`distinct non-infringement positions. By statute, Plaintiff is not permitted to have a consolidated
`trial against all of the Defendants across the four Litigations. Consistent with this, it would be
`inappropriate for summary judgment briefing, which is tightly connected to shaping the scope of
`trial, to be effectively consolidated across four cases involving disparate defendants and products.
`Defendants’ proposal includes a meet and confer no later than one month prior to the submission
`of summary judgment briefing during which the parties can explore the extent to which there is a
`possibility of coordination of summary judgment briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (Via E-Filing)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`
`Brian E. Farnan
`
`3
`
`

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.

We are unable to display this document.

Connectivity issues with tsdrapi.uspto.gov. Try again now (HTTP Error 429: ).

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket