`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`RA VGEN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 1 :20-cv-692-ADA
`
`NA TERA, INC. and NSTX, JNC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`FI LED
`JAN 1-,6 20?.4
`CLERK. U.S. DISl RiCT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRl:r!fi-XAS
`av -
`oe?fi# CLERK
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`In answering the following questions, please follow the directions provided throughout the
`
`Verdict Form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the questions contain
`
`legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury Instructions. Please refer to and
`
`consider the Jury Instructions as you answer these questions in the Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 503 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 7
`
`As used herein, "Ravgen" refers to plaintiffRavgen, Inc. and "Natera" refers to defendants
`
`Natera, Inc. and NSTX, Inc. As used herein, "the '277 Patent" means U.S. Patent Number
`
`7,332,277.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 503 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 7
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`QUESTION 1: Did Ravgen prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Natera infringed the
`following asse1ted claims of the '277 Patent?
`
`Answer "YES" or "NO" for each claim.
`"YES" is a finding for Ravgen. "NO" is a finding for Natera.
`
`Claim 125:
`
`YES.jb
`
`NO _ _ _
`
`Claim 132:
`
`YES.1.b
`
`NO _ _ _
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 503 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 7
`
`VALIDITY
`
`QUESTION 2: Did Natera prove by clear and convincing evidence that the following asserted
`claims of the '277 Patent are invalid?
`
`Answer "YES" or "NO" for each claim.
`"YES" is a finding for Natera. "NO" is a finding for Ravgen.
`
`Claim 125: YES__ NO____tl_Q
`Claim 132: YES__ NO JiQ_
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 503 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 7
`
`WILLFULNESS (ONLY IF APPLICABLE)
`
`Only answer Question 3 if you answered: (1) "YES" to at least one claim in response to
`Question 1; and (2) "NO" for the same claim(s) in response to Question 2.
`
`If you did not find any asserted claim to be both infringed and valid, then you do not need to
`answer Question 3.
`
`QUESTION 3: Did Ravgen prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Natera willfully
`infringed the '277 Patent?
`
`Answer "YES" or "NO" for each patent.
`"YES" is a finding for Ravgen. "NO" is a finding for Natera.
`
`YES _ _ NO ND
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 503 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 7
`
`DAMAGES fONL Y IF APPLICABLE)
`
`Only answer Question 4 if you answered: (1) "YES'' to at least one claim in response to
`Question 1; and (2) "NO" for the same claim(s) in response to Question 2.
`
`I/you did not find any asserted claim to be both inji-inged and valid, then you do not need to
`answer Question 4.
`
`QUESTION 4: What is the amount of damages you find that Rav gen has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence for Natera's infringement of the '277 Patent?
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00692-ADA Document 503 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 7
`
`You have now reached the end of the Verdict Form and you should review itto ensure that it
`
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. After you are satisfied that your unanimous
`
`answers are correctly reflected above, your Jury Foreperson should then sign and date this Verdict
`
`Form in the spaces below. Once that is done, notify the Comt Security Officer that you have reached
`
`a verdict. The Jury Foreperson should keep the Verdict Form and bring it when the jury is brought
`
`back into the comtroom.
`
`I certify that the jury unanimously concurs in every element of the above verdict.
`
`SIGNED this I Lo¾av oL \t{ V\ 2024.
`ORIGINAL SIGNATURE
`~ -
`REDACTED PURSUANT TO
`5,,GQV RNMiNT ACT F aQQi
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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
