• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
513 results

Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al.

Docket 1:20-cv-01646, Delaware District Court (Dec. 3, 2020)
Judge Jennifer L. Hall, presiding.
Patent

cite Cite Docket

No. 355 SO ORDERED, re (274 in 1:20-cv-01734-JLH, 354 in 1:20-cv-01646-JLH) Stipulated Scheduling Order ...

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 355 (D.Del. Apr. 22, 2024)
WHEREAS an amended scheduling order was entered in the above-captioned actions on March 28, 2023 coordinating them for pretrial purposes (D.I.
234 in No. 20-1734; Jan. 22, 2024 Order); WHEREAS the Court ordered that the jury trial involving the Roche Defendants shall take place during the week of October 28, 2024, with jury selection on October 25, 2024, and that the Court anticipates it will hear Defendants’ equitable defenses, including inequitable conduct, in both cases concurrently with the first jury trial outside the presence of the jury and will make a decision regarding the schedule at the pretrial conference (Oral Order, D.I.
273 in No. 20-1734); Now, therefore, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned cases shall continue to be coordinated for pretrial purposes and through a single bench trial on Defendants’ equitable defenses, including inequitable conduct, as set forth in the schedule below:
Case Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions Case Dispositive Hearing Date Pretrial Conference for First Jury Trial in No. 20-1646 and for Bench Trial in Both Cases Jury Selection Five-Day Jury Trial in No. 20- 1646 to Commence
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 355 SO ORDERED, re (274 in 1:20-cv-01734-JLH, 354 in 1:20-cv-01646-JLH) Stipulated Scheduling Order ...

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 355 (D.Del. Apr. 22, 2024)
WHEREAS an amended scheduling order was entered in the above-captioned actions on March 28, 2023 coordinating them for pretrial purposes (D.I.
234 in No. 20-1734; Jan. 22, 2024 Order); WHEREAS the Court ordered that the jury trial involving the Roche Defendants shall take place during the week of October 28, 2024, with jury selection on October 25, 2024, and that the Court anticipates it will hear Defendants’ equitable defenses, including inequitable conduct, in both cases concurrently with the first jury trial outside the presence of the jury and will make a decision regarding the schedule at the pretrial conference (Oral Order, D.I.
273 in No. 20-1734); Now, therefore, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned cases shall continue to be coordinated for pretrial purposes and through a single bench trial on Defendants’ equitable defenses, including inequitable conduct, as set forth in the schedule below:
Case Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions Case Dispositive Hearing Date Pretrial Conference for First Jury Trial in No. 20-1646 and for Bench Trial in Both Cases Jury Selection Five-Day Jury Trial in No. 20- 1646 to Commence
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 205 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re Claim Construction Disputes

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 205 (D.Del. Jul. 10, 2023)
Motion for Claim Construction
Definiteness, like claim construction, should be assessed from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed, and it should be considered in view of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.
It seems to me that if a POSITA could understand the bounds of the term regardless of the overlap, they are not indefinite.11 Defendants also point out that a particular agent might operate as a membrane stabilizer or cell lysis inhibitor under certain conditions but not others.
During prosecution of the ʼ277 patent, the examiner rejected certain claims as anticipated by Lo, stating, “Lo et al. teach collecting maternal blood into a tube comprising EDTA (i.e. an agent that inhibits cell lysis.”13 The patentee responded in pertinent part:
However, I agree with Plaintiff that the prosecution history indicates that the word “fetal” was added to the claims not to specify that the fetal DNA needs to be isolated from the maternal DNA, but rather to indicate that the analysis is performed on a sample obtained from a pregnant female that contains fetal DNA.16 also note that my recommendation is consistent with the construction adopted by Judge Albright in the Ravgen v. Labcorp case.17 While his construction is, of course, not binding on the Court, I do agree with his conclusion.
Instead, the prosecution history reflects that the phrase “non-cellular fraction” was added to 18 Plaintiff argued that no construction was necessary but offered an alternative proposal in case the Court construed the term.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 538

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 538 (D.Del. Sep. 3, 2024)

cite Cite Document

No. 532

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 532 (D.Del. Aug. 20, 2024)

cite Cite Document

No. 352

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 352 (D.Del. Apr. 9, 2024)

cite Cite Document

No. 60

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 60 (D.Del. Aug. 11, 2021)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>