• 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
DivisionWilmington
FlagsCLOSED, MOTREF, PATENT
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10131937; 10131947; 10131951; 10167508; 10233496; 10289800; 10308981; 10533223; 10718019; 10718024; 7332277; 7727720; 7955794; 8700338; 8712697; 8756020; 9206417; 9567639; 9624490; 9890421; 9994897
73322777727720
7955794
87003388712697875602092064179567639962449098904219994897
Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc.
Defendant Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
Defendant Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
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. 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 Joint Status Report, by Ravgen, Inc

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 538 (D.Del. Sep. 3, 2024)
Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc. and Defendants Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. provide this update.
The parties have finalized a written settlement agreement and are coordinating the required signatures for the agreement.
The parties thus request that the Court continue the stay until September 10, 2024.
If a dismissal has not been filed by that time, the parties will submit a joint status report on or before September 10, 2024 advising the Court of the status.
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 532 STIPULATION to Stay Case by Ravgen, Inc

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 532 (D.Del. Aug. 20, 2024)
Motion to Stay
Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc. and Defendants Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. move to stay in this case for a period of 7 days.
The parties are discussing settlement and wish to conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources so that the parties can focus on resolving this matter.
The parties thus request that the Court stay all dates in this case for 7 days from the date of this stipulation (August 27, 2024), and that the parties file a status update on or before August 27, 2024 advising the Court of settlement status and the parties’ respective positions on whether the stay should continue.
Attorneys for Defendants Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., and Foundation Medicine, Inc.
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 352 Letter to The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall from Brian E. Farnan regarding Joint Status Letter ...

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 352 (D.Del. Apr. 9, 2024)
Dear Judge Hall: Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order in these actions (No. 20-1646, 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.
Finally, Roche and Biora have advanced overlapping inequitable conduct affirmative defenses and counterclaims that will need to be resolved by the Court.
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.
This approach permits the Court to draw on the jury trial record and minimizes the need for duplicative testimony.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 60 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Motions to Dismiss the Original Complaint (D.I. 12; D.I. 15), ...

Document Ravgen, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01646, No. 60 (D.Del. Aug. 11, 2021)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
A claim is plausible on its face when the complaint contains “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“[W]hen the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558 (internal quotation marks omitted).
One such contact allegedly came from the former CEO of Ariosa, Dr. Ken Song, who first reached out to Dr. Dhallan requesting “a chance to discuss Ravgen and its technology” in July 2009.20 Although he was not yet employed by Ariosa or its predecessor at the time of that initial contact, Dr. Song became the CEO of Aria Diagnostics, which later changed its name to Ariosa sometime prior to December 2011.21 The discussions between Dr. Song and Dr. Dhallan continued for several years and included in- person meetings at both Ariosa’s and Ravgen’s facilities.22 While I am not sure that any one of these facts on its own would be sufficient to permit an inference that the Roche Defendants knew that their acts infringed the asserted patents, I find that it is at least plausible to infer from these facts taken together that the Roche Defendants had such knowledge.
in order to plausibly plead knowledge of infringement.24 Rather, they say that under the circumstances here, including the parties’ history of communications, the lack of such a notice makes it implausible that Roche believed it was infringing.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>