throbber
Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:4987
`
`
`David A. Sergenian (SBN 230174)
`SERGENIAN LAW
`2355 Westwood Blvd. #529
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`(213) 435-2035
`david@sergenianlaw.com
`
`John M. Desmarais (SBN 320875)
`Gabrielle E. Higgins (SBN 163179)
`DESMARAIS LLP
`101 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`T: 415-573-1900 / F: 415-573-1901
`jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`ghiggins@desmaraisllp.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
`Defendant Ravgen, Inc.
`
`
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek (pro hac vice)
`Benjamin N. Luehrs (pro hac vice)
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`T: 212-351-3400 / F: 212-351-3401
`klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`bluehrs@desmaraisllp.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
`Defendant Ravgen, Inc.
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature
`Block]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Ravgen, Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and
`Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Quest Diagnostics Incorporated,
`
`Counterclaimant,
`
`
`v.
`
`Ravgen, Inc.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:4988
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff Ravgen, Inc. (“Ravgen”), for its First Amended Complaint against
`
`Defendants Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (“Quest”) and Quest Diagnostics Nichols
`Institute (“Quest Nichols”) (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby alleges as follows:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`This is a civil action for infringement of United States Patent Nos.
`7,727,720 (the “’720 Patent”) and 7,332,277 (the “’277 Patent”) (collectively the
`“Patents-in-Suit”), arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 271 et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`2.
`Plaintiff Ravgen is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`business at 9241 Rumsey Rd., Columbia, MD 21045. Ravgen is a pioneering
`diagnostics company that focuses on non-invasive prenatal testing. Ravgen has spent
`millions of dollars researching and developing novel methods for the detection of cell-
`free DNA to replace conventional, invasive procedures. Ravgen’s innovative cell-free
`DNA technology has various applications, including non-invasive prenatal and other
`genetic testing. Those efforts have resulted in the issuance of several patents,
`including the Patents-in-Suit.
`3.
`Defendant Quest is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`business at 500 Plaza Drive, Secaucus, NJ 07094. (ECF No. 152 at ¶ 3 (Quest
`Answer); Ex. 48.) Quest is registered to do business in the state of California. (Ex.
`41.) Quest has appointed Corporation Service Company (d/b/a CSC – Lawyers
`Incorporating Service Company), located at 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N,
`Sacramento, CA 95833, as its agent for service of process. (Ex. 48; Ex. 42.) Quest
`maintains several places of business in this District, including patient collection
`centers that offer diagnostic tests (e.g., the QNatal Advanced test), such as at 1300
`Avenida Vista Hermosa, Suite 160, San Clemente, CA 92673; and other offices, such
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:4989
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`as at 675 Camino De Los Mares, Suite 300, San Clemente, CA 92673. (See, e.g., Ex.
`43 (https://appointment.questdiagnostics.com/find-location/as-location-finder); Exs.
`50-51 (Dun & Bradstreet reports identifying the businesses at the addresses as Quest
`Diagnostics).)
`4.
`Defendant Quest Nichols is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`place of business at 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. (ECF
`No. 152 at ¶ 48 (Quest Answer); Ex. 49.) Quest Nichols is. 4 registered to do business
`in the state of California. (Ex. 44). Quest has appointed Corporation Service
`Company (d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company), located at 2710
`gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833, as its agent for service of
`process. (Ex. 49; Ex. 42.)
`5.
`Quest and Quest Nichols each have employees at the San Juan
`Capistrano location above. (See, e.g., ECF No. 21 at 13 (Quest Motion to Transfer).)
`6.
`Defendants commercialize genetic tests using cell-free DNA, including a
`non-invasive prenatal diagnostic test for the determination of fetal chromosomal
`abnormalities marketed under the trade name “QNatal Advanced.” Defendants offer
`and market this test throughout the United States, at least through the website
`www.questdiagnostics.com. (See generally Ex. 12
`(https://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/patients/health-test-info/womens-
`health/prenatal/during-pregnancy/noninvasive/).)
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`7.
`Ravgen incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–6.
`8.
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35
`U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this
`action is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`2
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:4990
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), (d),
`and 1400(b) because Defendants have a permanent and continuous presence in, have
`committed acts of infringement in, and maintain regular and established places of
`businesses in, this District.
`10. By registering to conduct business in California and by having facilities
`where it regularly conducts business in this District, Defendants have a permanent and
`continuous presence and regular and established places of business in the Central
`District of California.
`11. Quest maintains regular and established places of business in this
`District. (See, e.g., ECF No. 152 at ¶ 48-49 (Quest Answer); ECF No. 21 at 13.) On
`information and belief, Quest holds out at least its patient collection centers that offer
`diagnostic tests, including at 1300 Avenida Vista Hermosa, Suite 160, San Clemente,
`CA 92673, as Quest’s own, including by displaying its name at these locations, listing
`these locations and directing patients to these locations on its website located at
`https://appointment.questdiagnostics.com/find-location/as-location-finder. (See Ex.
`43; Ex. 7 at 1 (Quest Diagnostics Incorporated’s Form 10-K for Fiscal Year 2019)
`(“We conduct business through . . . our laboratories, patient service centers, offices
`and other facilities around the United States . . . .”); id. at 38 (“We also maintain
`offices . . . and patient service centers at locations throughout the United States.”).)
`Further, Quest’s places of business in this District include other laboratories, such as
`at 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. (See Ex. 45 (Dun &
`Bradstreet report identifying the business at this location as Quest Diagnostics Nichols
`Institute); Ex. 46 (Google street view photos of this location showing “Quest
`Diagnostics”)). On information and belief, employees of Quest carry out Quest’s
`business at places of business in this District. (See, e.g., ECF No. 21 at 13)
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`3
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:4991
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12. Quest Nichols maintains regular and established places of business in this
`District, including a laboratory at 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA
`92675. (See ECF No. 152 at ¶ 48-49 (Quest Answer); Ex. 44; Ex. 49.) On
`information and belief, Quest Nichols holds out these places of business as its own,
`including by displaying its name at this location, listing this location and directing
`patients to this location on its website located at
`https://www.questdiagnostics.com/locations/search.html/domestic (See Ex. 47.)
`13. Defendants offer for sale and sell cell-free DNA tests that employ
`methods claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, including the QNatal Advanced test,
`throughout the United States, including through its website, which is accessible in this
`District. (See, e.g., Ex. 15
`(https://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/physicians/testing-services/by-test-
`name/noninvasive/requisition/); Ex. 16 at 2
`(https://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/physicians/testing-services/by-test-
`name/noninvasive/faq/) (“How do I order QNatal Advanced? . . . contact your sales
`representative, email a genetic counselor at GENEINFO@QuestDiagnostics.com, or
`call 1.866.GENE.INFO (1.866.436.3463).”); Ex. 17
`(https://www.questdiagnostics.com/dms/Documents/Other/QNatal-
`Requisition/QNatal%20Requisition.pdf) (physician order form for QNatal
`Advanced).)
`14. Quest has committed acts of direct infringement in this judicial District.
`For example, on information and belief, Quest commits acts of infringement in this
`District by offering for sale and selling the performance of infringing methods at
`Quest’s patient collection centers, such as at 1300 Avenida Vista Hermosa, Suite 160,
`San Clemente, CA 92673. Specifically, as detailed further below, Quest offers for
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`4
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:4992
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`sale and sells the obligation to perform the steps of the patented methods by, for
`example, offering for sale and selling the QNatal Advanced test.
`15. Quest has also committed acts of direct infringement in this judicial
`District itself and/or through its wholly owned subsidiary Quest Nichols. For
`example, on information and belief, Quest, itself and/or through its wholly owned
`subsidiary Quest Nichols, which acts as an agent and alter ego of Quest and is
`completely controlled and dominated by Quest, performs infringing methods in this
`District by using the QNatal Advanced tests, including processing the results of those
`tests, in offices and laboratories at 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA
`92675.
`16. Quest Nichols has committed acts of direct infringement in this judicial
`District. For example, on information and belief, Quest Nichols performs infringing
`methods in this District by using the QNatal Advanced tests, including processing the
`results of those tests, in offices and laboratories at 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan
`Capistrano, CA 92675. (ECF No. 152 at ¶ 48-49 (Quest Answer).)
`17. Venue is also proper because Quest Nichols is a wholly-owned
`subsidiary of Quest, operates as an agent and alter-ego of Quest, and is completely
`controlled and dominated by Quest. Quest directs and is involved in the activities of
`Quest Nichols, and they operate as a single company. As the corporate parent of
`Quest Nichols, Quest has participated in the commission of patent infringement in this
`judicial District, including by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling the
`QNatal Advanced tests in this District and elsewhere that led to foreseeable harm and
`injury to Ravgen. Quest’s SEC filings confirm that at all relevant times, Quest owned
`and owns 100% of Quest Nichols, and that Quest has the right and the ability to direct
`and control the activities of Quest Nichols. (E.g., Ex. 7 at Exhibit 21.1 (“Subsidiaries,
`Joint Ventures and Affiliates” on Form 10-K).) Further, Quest directs and is involved
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`5
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:4993
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`in the activities of Quest Nichols, and they operate as a single company. (Ex. 7 at 11
`(“We maintain a nationwide network of laboratories, including advanced laboratories
`(such as our world-renowned Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute) . . . .”).)
`Additionally, at least some members of the Quest “Management Team” work at Quest
`Nichols. For example, Jay G. Wohlgemuth, M.D. is Senior Vice President, R&D,
`Medical and Chief Medical Officer for Quest, and also works at Quest Nichols. (Ex.
`40 at 2 (https://ir.questdiagnostics.com/governance/management-team/default.aspx)
`(“Based in Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, in San Juan Capistrano, California,
`Dr. Wohlgemuth is responsible for Research & Development, Medical Affairs, and
`Medical/Lab Quality.”).) On information and belief, Dr. Wohlgemuth is an employee
`and/or officer of Quest, whose leadership position at Quest Nichols further enables
`Quest to exercise direction and control over the activities of its fully owned
`subsidiary, Quest Nichols.
`18. Quest is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to due process
`and/or the California Long Arm Statute due at least to its substantial business in this
`State and judicial District, including at least regularly doing and soliciting business at
`the San Juan Capistrano facility identified above, and engaging in persistent conduct
`and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to customers in
`the State of California, including in the Central District of California. For example,
`Quest conducts business in the District by at least offering for sale and selling
`products and services that comprise the performance of the claimed methods of the
`Patents-in-Suit, including the QNatal Advanced test, including through Quest’s
`websites, which are accessible in this District. In addition, Quest leases and operates
`patient collection centers in this District that sell, offer for sale, and support products
`and services that comprise the performance of the claimed methods of the Patents-in-
`Suit, including at least the QNatal Advanced test.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`6
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:4994
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Quest due, inter alia, to its
`continuous presence in, and systematic contact with, this District and its registration in
`California. (See Ex. 41; Ex. 48.) Quest has established minimum contacts within the
`forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Quest will not offend traditional
`notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`20. Personal jurisdiction exists over Quest because Quest, directly and/or
`through subsidiaries or intermediaries, has committed and continues to commit acts of
`infringement in this District by, among other things, using products and/or services
`that infringe the Patents-in-Suit, which led to foreseeable harm and injury to Ravgen.
`21. Quest Nichols is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to due
`process and/or the California Long Arm Statute due at least to its substantial business
`in this State and judicial District, including at least part of its infringing activities,
`regularly doing and soliciting business at its 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan
`Capistrano, CA 92675, facilities, and engaging in persistent conduct and/or deriving
`substantial revenue from goods and services provided to customers in the State of
`California, including in the Central District of California. For example, Quest Nichols
`conducts business in the District by at least processing the QNatal Advanced tests in
`laboratories at 33608 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675.
`22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Quest Nichols due, inter alia, to
`its continuous presence in, and systematic contact with, this judicial District and its
`registration in California. Quest Nichols has established minimum contacts within the
`forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Quest Nichols will not offend
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`23. Personal jurisdiction exists over Quest Nichols because Quest Nichols
`has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this judicial District
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`7
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:4995
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`by, among other things, using products and/or services that infringe the Patents-in-
`Suit, which led to foreseeable harm and injury to Ravgen.
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`24. Dr. Ravinder S. Dhallan is the founder of Ravgen, Inc. and the inventor
`of several patents in the field of detection of genetic disorders, including chromosomal
`abnormalities and mutations. Ravgen’s mission is to provide state of the art genetic
`testing that will enrich the lives of its patients. For example, through the use of its
`novel techniques in non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing, Ravgen gives patients the
`knowledge they need to prepare for their pregnancies and treat diseases at an early
`stage.
`25. Prior to founding Ravgen, Dr. Dhallan was a board-certified emergency
`room physician. During his time at medical school and his residency at Mass General
`(Harvard University School of Medicine), Dr. Dhallan and his wife suffered three
`miscarriages. At that time, the prenatal diagnostic testing procedures available
`included (a) non-invasive techniques with low sensitivity and specificity, and (b) tests
`with higher sensitivity and specificity that were highly invasive and therefore
`associated with a risk for loss of pregnancy. After discovering the limitations on the
`available techniques for prenatal testing, Dr. Dhallan made it his mission to invent an
`improved prenatal diagnostic exam—one that was both non-invasive and accurate. In
`September of 2000, Dr. Dhallan founded Ravgen (which stands for “Rapid Analysis
`of Variations in the GENome”) to pursue that goal.
`26. Prior to Ravgen’s inventions, scientists had recognized the need for a
`genetic testing technique that used “cell-free” or “free” fetal DNA circulating in
`maternal blood. A technique that relied on circulating free fetal DNA would require
`only a simple blood draw from the mother and would therefore be improvement over
`invasive diagnostic tests.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`8
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 10 of 39 Page ID
`#:4996
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`27. However, at that time, the use of free fetal DNA for detecting
`chromosomal abnormalities was limited by the low percentage of free fetal DNA that
`could be recovered from a sample of maternal blood using existing techniques. (See,
`e.g., Ex. 18 (Y.M. Dennis Lo et al., Presence of Fetal DNA in Maternal Plasma and
`Serum, 350 THE LANCET 768-75 (1997), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
`6736(97)02174-0.) Dr. Dhallan recognized that a method that could increase the
`percentage of free fetal DNA relative to the free maternal DNA in a sample was
`necessary to the development of an accurate, non-invasive prenatal diagnostic test.
`28. After substantial research, Dr. Dhallan conceived that including an agent
`that impedes cell lysis (disruption of the cell membrane) if cells are present during
`sample collection, shipping, handling, and processing would permit the recovery of a
`larger percentage of cell-free fetal DNA (relative to the cell-free maternal DNA in a
`sample). Dr. Dhallan hypothesized that this new approach would decrease the amount
`of maternal cell lysis and therefore lower the amount of cell-free maternal DNA in the
`sample, thereby increasing the percentage of cell-free fetal DNA. He developed a
`novel method for processing cell-free fetal DNA that involved the addition of an agent
`that impedes cell lysis—for example, a membrane stabilizer, a cross-linker, and/or a
`cell lysis inhibitor—to maternal blood samples coupled with careful processing
`protocols. With that novel method, Dr. Dhallan was able to increase the relative
`percentage of cell-free fetal DNA in the processed sample.
`29. Having successfully increased the relative percentage of cell-free fetal
`DNA recovered, Dr. Dhallan next addressed the challenge of distinguishing between
`the cell-free maternal and cell-free fetal DNA in a sample in order to determine
`whether a chromosomal abnormality is present in the fetal DNA. Prior to Ravgen’s
`inventions, known methods for detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities were time-
`consuming and burdensome. Many required amplification of the entire sequence of a
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`9
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 11 of 39 Page ID
`#:4997
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`gene, or quantification of the total amount of a particular gene product in a sample.
`Dr. Dhallan developed an alternate method that greatly increased the efficiency of this
`process by taking advantage of the variation of base sequences among different
`individuals (including a mother and fetus) (“alleles”) at particular positions (“loci”) on
`chromosomes. The term “allele” refers to an alternate form of a gene, or a non-coding
`region of DNA that occurs at a particular loci on a chromosome. The alleles present
`at certain loci on chromosomes (including, for example, “single nucleotide
`polymorphisms” or “SNPs”) vary between different individuals. At such a locus, a
`fetus may therefore inherit an allele from its father that differs from the alleles present
`at that locus on its mother’s chromosome. Dr. Dhallan developed a novel method for
`quantifying the allelic ratio at such a locus (or loci) of interest in a sample comprising
`maternal and fetal cell-free DNA in order to detect whether a fetal chromosomal
`abnormality was present in the fetal DNA of the sample, without requiring physical
`separation of the fetal from the maternal cell-free DNA.
`30. Dr. Dhallan understood that his breakthroughs laid the foundation for the
`development of accurate non-invasive prenatal diagnostic tests. For example, he
`published a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in
`2004, explaining that “the methods described herein for increasing the percentage of
`cell-free fetal DNA provide a solid foundation for the development of a noninvasive
`prenatal diagnostic test.” (Ex. 19 at 1119 (R. Dhallan et al., Methods to Increase the
`Percentage of Free Fetal DNA Recovered from the Maternal Circulation, 291 JAMA
`1114–19 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.9.1114).)
`31.
`JAMA also ran an editorial alongside Dr. Dhallan’s article in 2004,
`recognizing the significance of his inventions to applications in prenatal genetic
`diagnosis and cancer detection and surveillance:
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`10
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 12 of 39 Page ID
`#:4998
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In this issue of THE JOURNAL, the findings reported in the
`study by Dhallan and colleagues on enhancing recovery of
`cell-free DNA in maternal blood have major clinical
`implications. Developing a reliable, transportable
`technology for cell-free DNA analysis impacts 2 crucial
`areas—prenatal genetic diagnosis and cancer detection and
`surveillance. In prenatal genetic diagnosis, detecting a fetal
`abnormality without an invasive procedure (or with fewer
`invasive procedures) is a major advantage. Likewise in
`cancer surveillance (eg, in patients with leukemia),
`monitoring treatment without having to perform a bone
`marrow aspiration for karyotype also would be of great
`benefit.
`
`* * *
`
`With prospective studies focusing on clinical applications of
`these findings, profound clinical implications could emerge
`for prenatal diagnosis and cancer surveillance.
`
`(Ex. 20 at 1135, 1137 (J.L. Simpson & F. Bischoff, Cell-Free Fetal DNA in Maternal
`Blood: Evolving Clinical Applications, 291 JAMA 1135–37 (2004),
`https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.9.1135).)
`32.
`In 2007, Dr. Dhallan published a second journal article in The Lancet that
`presented a study showcasing Ravgen’s ability to use its novel technology to detect
`Down’s syndrome using free fetal DNA in a maternal blood sample. (Ex. 21 (R.
`Dhallan et al., A Non-Invasive Test for Prenatal Diagnosis Based on Fetal DNA
`Present in Maternal Blood: A Preliminary Study, 369 THE LANCET 474–81 (2007),
`https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60115-9).) Dr. Dhallan’s peers at The Lancet
`also recognized that his innovative test “opens a new era in prenatal screening.” (See
`Ex. 22 (A. Benachi & J.M. Costa, Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal
`Aneuploidies, 369 THE LANCET 440–42 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
`6736(07)60116-0).)
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`11
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 13 of 39 Page ID
`#:4999
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`33. Dr. Dhallan’s publications received worldwide press coverage, from
`outlets such as CNN, BBC, and Washington Post. (See Ex. 23 (L. Palmer, A Better
`Prenatal Test?, CNN MONEY (Sept. 12, 2007),
`https://money.cnn.com/2007/09/07/smbusiness/amniocentesis
`.fsb/index.htm); Ex. 24 (Hope for Safe Prenatal Gene Test, BBC NEWS, Feb 2, 2007,
`http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6320273.stm); Ex. 25 (A. Gardner, Experimental
`Prenatal Test Helps Spot Birth Defects, WASH. POST (Feb. 2, 2007),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
`dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200914.html).)
`34. The Patents-in-Suit resulted from Dr. Dhallan’s years-long research at
`Ravgen to develop these innovative new methods for detecting genetic disorders.
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`35. Ravgen incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–34.
`36. The ’277 Patent, entitled “Methods For Detection Of Genetic Disorders,”
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on
`February 19, 2008. The inventor of the patent is Ravinder S. Dhallan, and the patent
`is assigned to Ravgen. A copy of the ’277 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`37. Ravgen is the exclusive owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’277
`Patent, and has the right to bring this suit to recover damages for any current or past
`infringement of the ’277 Patent. (See Ex. 3.)
`38. The ’720 Patent, entitled “Methods For Detection Of Genetic Disorders,”
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June
`1, 2010. The inventor of the patent is Ravinder S. Dhallan, and the patent is assigned
`to Ravgen. A copy of the ’720 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`12
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 14 of 39 Page ID
`#:5000
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`39. Ravgen is the exclusive owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’720
`Patent, and has the right to bring this suit to recover damages for any current or past
`infringement of the ’720 Patent. (See Ex. 4.)
`40. The ’277 Patent is directed to, among other things, novel methods used in
`the detection of genetic disorders. For example, claim 81 of the ’277 Patent recites:
`
`A method for preparing a sample for analysis comprising
`isolating free fetal nucleic acid from a the sample, wherein
`said sample comprises an agent that inhibits lysis of cells, if
`cells are present, and wherein said agent is selected from the
`group consisting of membrane stabilizer, cross-linker, and
`cell lysis inhibitor.
`
`41. The ’720 Patent is directed to novel methods for detecting a free nucleic
`acid in a sample. For example, claim 1 of the ’720 Patent recites:
`
`A method for detecting a free nucleic acid, wherein said
`method comprises: (a) isolating free nucleic acid from a
`non-cellular fraction of a sample, wherein said sample
`comprises an agent that impedes cell lysis, if cells are
`present, and wherein said agent is selected from the group
`consisting of membrane stabilizer, cross-linker, and cell
`lysis inhibitor; and (b) detecting the presence or absence of
`the free nucleic acid.
`42. The Patents-in-Suit are directed to unconventional, non-routine
`techniques for preparing and analyzing extracellular circulatory DNA, including for
`the detection of genetic disorders. The Patents-in-Suit explain that, inter alia, the
`inventions claimed therein overcame problems in the field—for example, that the low
`percentage of fetal DNA in maternal plasma makes using the DNA for genotyping the
`fetus difficult—with a novel and innovative solution—the addition of cell lysis
`inhibitors, cell membrane stabilizers or cross-linkers to the maternal blood sample,
`which increase the percentage of cell-free DNA available for detection and analysis:
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`13
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS Document 168 Filed 05/02/22 Page 15 of 39 Page ID
`#:5001
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The percentage of fetal DNA in maternal plasma is between
`0.39-11.9% (Pertl, and Bianchi, Obstetrics and Gynecology
`98: 483-490 (2001)). The majority of the DNA in the
`plasma sample is maternal, which makes using the DNA
`for genotyping the fetus difficult. However, methods that
`increase the percentage of fetal DNA in the maternal plasma
`allow the sequence of the fetal DNA to be determined, and
`allow for the detection of genetic disorders including
`mutations, insertions, deletions, and chromosomal
`abnormalities. The addition of cell lysis inhibitors, cell
`membrane stabilizers or cross-linkers to the maternal
`blood sample can increase the relative percentage of fetal
`DNA. While lysis of both maternal and fetal cells is
`inhibited, the vast majority of cells are maternal, and thus by
`reducing the lysis of maternal cells, there is a relative
`increase in the percentage of free fetal DNA.
`
`(Ex. 1 (’277 Patent) at 32:24–39; Ex. 2 (’720 Patent) at 33:31–46 (emphases added).)
`43. The Patents-in-Suit teach that the benefit of Dr. Dhallan’s discovery, an
`increase in the relative percentage of cell-free DNA, is realized by performance of the
`claimed method, including through the inclusion of an agent that inhibits the lysis of
`the cells in a sample:
`An overall increase in fetal DNA was achieved by reducing
`the maternal cell lysis, and thus, reducing the amount of
`maternal DNA present in the sample. In this example,
`formaldehyde was used to prevent lysis of the cells, however
`any agent that prevents the lysis of cells or increases the
`structural integrity of the cells can be used. The increase in
`fetal DNA in the maternal plasma allows the sequence of the
`fetal DNA to be determined, and provides for the rapid
`detection of abnormal DNA sequences or chromosomal
`abnormalities including but not limited to point mutation,
`reading frame shift, transition, transversion, addition,
`insertion, deletion, addition-deletion, frame-shift, missense,
`reverse

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

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.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket