Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 57136
`
`~ ~t>-tl. I.., 0 ,~ C, t> 11.,.i S /1 f /):i @;
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NATERA, INC. ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ARCHERDX, INC., ARCHERDX, LLC and
`INVITAE CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 20-125 (GBW)
`)
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`Instructions: When answering the following questions and completing this Verdict Form, please
`
`follow the directions provided and follow the Jury Instructions that you have been given. Your
`
`answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal terms that are
`
`defined and explained in the Jury Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are
`
`unsure about the meaning or usage of any legal term that appears in the questions below.
`
`As used herein:
`
`1.
`
`''Natera" refers to PlaintiffNatera, Inc.
`
`2. "Defendants" refers to Defendants ArcherDX, Inc., ArcherDX, LLC and Invitae Corp.
`
`3. The "' 172 Patent" refers to U.S . Patent No. 10,557,172.
`
`4. The "' 708 Patent" refers to U.S . Patent No. 10,597,708.
`
`5. The " '220 Patent" refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,731 ,220.
`
`
`
`~ ~t>-tl. I.., 0 ,~ C, t> 11.,.i S /1 f /):i @;
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NATERA, INC. ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ARCHERDX, INC., ARCHERDX, LLC and
`INVITAE CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 20-125 (GBW)
`)
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`Instructions: When answering the following questions and completing this Verdict Form, please
`
`follow the directions provided and follow the Jury Instructions that you have been given. Your
`
`answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal terms that are
`
`defined and explained in the Jury Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are
`
`unsure about the meaning or usage of any legal term that appears in the questions below.
`
`As used herein:
`
`1.
`
`''Natera" refers to PlaintiffNatera, Inc.
`
`2. "Defendants" refers to Defendants ArcherDX, Inc., ArcherDX, LLC and Invitae Corp.
`
`3. The "' 172 Patent" refers to U.S . Patent No. 10,557,172.
`
`4. The "' 708 Patent" refers to U.S . Patent No. 10,597,708.
`
`5. The " '220 Patent" refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,731 ,220.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 57137
`
`We, the jury, unanimously find as follows.
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1. Has Natera proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants directly infringed
`any asserted claim of the ' 1 72 patent? ( a "YES" answer is a finding for Natera; a "NO"
`answer is a finding for Defendants):
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`6
`
`8
`
`YES
`✓
`✓
`✓
`
`NO
`
`2. Has Natera proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants directly infringed
`any asserted claim of the ' 220 patent? (a "YES" answer is a finding for Natera; a "NO"
`answer is a finding for Defendants):
`
`NO
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`YES
`✓/
`✓
`✓
`j
`✓
`
`3. Has Natera proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants directly infringed
`any asserted claim of the ' 708 patent? (a "YES" answer is a finding for Natera; a "NO"
`answer is a finding for Defendants):
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`19
`
`NO
`
`YES
`I
`
`J,
`✓
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 57138
`
`SAFE HARBOR
`
`4. Have Defendants proven by a preponderance of the evidence that use of the PCM
`products was reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the
`U.S. Food and Drug Administration (also known as the FDA)? (a "YES" answer is a
`finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for N7ter.
`
`YES:____
`
`NO:_~--
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 57139
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`5. Has Natera proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants indirectly
`infringed any asserted claim of the ' 1 72 patent either by induced infringement or
`contributory infringement? (a "YES" answer is a finding for Natera; a ''NO" answer is a
`finding for Defendants):
`
`I
`
`I' CLAIM
`
`INDUCED
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`CONTRIBUTORY
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1,
`
`I'
`
`1
`
`6
`
`8
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`j
`J
`✓
`
`NO
`✓
`/
`✓
`
`6. Has Natera proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants indirectly
`infringed any asserted claim of the '220 patent either by induced infringement or
`contributory infringement? (a "YES" answer is a finding for Natera; a ''NO" answer is a
`finding for Defendants):
`
`CLAIM
`
`I(
`
`INDUCED
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`CONTRIBUTORY
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`NO
`
`,/
`✓
`j
`j
`✓
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`\/
`j
`j
`j
`/
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 57140
`
`7. Has Natera proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants indirectly
`infringed any asserted claim of the ' 708 patent either by induced infringement or
`contributory infringement? (a "YES" answer is a finding for Natera; a ''NO" answer is a
`finding for Defendants):
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`19
`
`INDUCED
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`CONTRIBUTORY
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`I
`
`NO
`j
`✓
`
`NO
`
`I
`/
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 57141
`
`VALIDITY: ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS
`
`8. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the ' 172 patent are invalid because it would have been anticipated based on
`Iafrate? (a "YES" answer is a finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for
`Natera):
`
`Ii
`
`CLAIM
`
`INVALID DUE TO
`ANTICIPATION
`
`1
`
`6
`
`8
`
`YES
`
`NO
`j
`I
`I
`
`9. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the '220 patent are invalid because it is anticipated based on Iafrate? (a "YES"
`answer is a finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for Natera):
`
`,,
`
`INVALID DUE TO
`ANTICIPATION
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`NO
`
`I
`/
`I
`✓,
`I
`
`YES
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 57142
`
`10. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the '708 patent are invalid because it would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art based on Blomquist in view of Forshew? (a "YES" answer is a
`finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for Natera):
`
`1,
`
`INVALID DUE TO
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`19
`
`YES
`
`NO
`,
`
`✓
`I
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 57143
`
`VALIDITY: WRITTEN DESCRIPTION, DEFINITENESS, OR FAILURE TO CLAIM
`WHAT THE INVENTORS REGARDED AS THEIR INVENTION
`
`11. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the '172 patent are invalid because the patent lacks adequate written
`description, or fails to claim what the inventors regarded as their invention? (a "YES"
`answer is a finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for Natera):
`
`INVALID FOR
`FAILURE TO
`CLAIMWHAT
`INVALID DUE
`THE
`TOLACKOF
`INVENTORS
`WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION REGARDED AS
`THEIR
`INVENTION
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`,
`✓
`j
`✓
`
`NO
`j
`I
`I
`
`CLAIM
`
`1
`
`6
`
`8
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 57144
`
`12. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the '220 patent are invalid because the patent lacks adequate written
`description, or fails to claim what the inventors regarded as their invention? (a "YES"
`answer is a finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for Natera):
`
`INVALID DUE
`TO LACK OF
`WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION
`
`CLAIM
`
`INVALID FOR
`FAILURE TO
`CLAIMWHAT
`THE INVENTORS
`REGARDED AS
`THEIR
`INVENTION
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`I
`✓
`✓
`j
`/
`
`NO
`
`✓
`✓
`j
`j
`✓
`
`13. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the ' 708 patent are invalid because the patent is indefinite? (a "YES" answer is
`a finding for Defendants; a ''NO" answer is a finding for Natera):
`
`INVALID DUE TO
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`CLAIM
`
`YES
`
`1
`
`19
`
`NO
`
`I
`j
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 57145
`
`INVENTORSIDP
`
`14. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the '172 patent are invalid for failing to name the proper inventors? ( a "YES"
`answer is a finding for Defendants; a ''NO" answer is a finding for Natera):
`
`CLAIM
`
`INVALID DUE TO
`IMPROPER
`INVENTORS.HIP
`
`1
`
`6
`
`8
`
`YES
`
`NO
`✓
`j
`j
`
`15. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following
`claims of the ' 220 patent are invalid for failing to name the proper inventors? (a "YES"
`answer is a finding for Defendants; a "NO" answer is a finding for Natera) :
`
`CLAIM
`
`INVALID DUE TO
`IMPROPER
`INVENTORSHIP
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`NO
`✓
`j
`✓
`✓
`✓
`
`YES
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 57146
`
`DAMAGES
`
`You are only to answer Question Nos. 16-18 below if you have found an Asserted Claim of the
`Patents-in-Suit to be infringed and not invalid.
`
`16. What is the total amount of damages Natera has proven by a preponderance of the
`evidence that it is entitled to be paid for lost profits as a result of Defendants' infringing
`sales of PCM?
`
`17. For any PCM sales on which you did not award lost profits, what is the total amount of
`damages Natera has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to be
`paid as a reasonable royalty for past sales of Defendants' PCM?
`
`Royalty Rate:
`
`Amount for Sales in the United States: $ 0 -= - - - - - - - - - -
`Amount for Sales Outside United States:$ 0
`
`--=-- - - - - - - - -
`
`18. What is the total amount of damages Natera has proven by a preponderance of the
`evidence that it is entitled to be paid as a reasonable royalty for Defendants' past sales
`of the accused products other than PCM?
`
`Royalty Rate:
`
`Amount for Sales in the United States: $ 5'", t-/ 3 0 , J ~ /
`Amount for Sales Outside United States: $ :/ / 5 b 1-IJ 1 '23
`
`I
`
`T
`
`Continue to next page.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00125-GBW Document 609 Filed 05/15/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 57147
`
`UNANIMOUS VERDICT
`
`UPON REACHING A UNANIMOUS VERDICT ON EACH QUESTION ABOVE,
`EACH JUROR MUST SIGN BELOW.
`
`We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the above questions and return them
`under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
`
`-
`
`Dated: 5/ / S-/ :;}, 3
`
`- --+-, - -~ - - - - -
`
`11
`
`
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
