Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Guardant Health, Inc. v. Found. Med., Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

April 22, 2020, Decided; May 7, 2020, Filed

Civil Action No. 17-1616-LPS-CJB; Civil Action No. 17-1623-LPS-CJB

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In these two related actions filed by Plaintiff Guardant Health, Inc. ("Guardant") against Defendants Foundation Medicine, Inc. ("FMI") and Personal Genome Diagnostics, Inc. ("PGDx" [*2]  and collectively with FMI, "Defendants"), Guardant alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,598,731 (the "'731 patent"), 9,834,822 (the "'822 patent"), 9,840,743 (the "'743 patent") and 9,902,992 (the "'992 patent" and collectively with the other patents, "the asserted patents"). This Report and Recommendation addresses: (1) those portions of Guardant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"), filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, that relate to Defendants' inventorship defenses and inequitable conduct counterclaims (the "inventorship MSJ"), (Civil Action No. 17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 291; Civil Action No. 17-1623-LPS-CJB, D.I. 434); (2) those portions of Guardant's MSJ that relate to PGDx's antitrust counterclaims (the "antitrust MSJ"), (id.); (3) Guardant's Daubert motion seeking to exclude the testimony of PGDx's damages expert Dr. Bradley Reiff ("Guardant's Daubert Motion"), filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, (Civil Action No. 17-1623-LPS-CJB, D.I. 435); and (4) FMI's Daubert motion, also filed pursuant to Rule 702, which seeks to exclude the damages opinions of Guardant's expert, Dr. Stephen L. Becker, and the related opinions of its infringement expert, Dr. Gregory Cooper ("FMI's Daubert Motion"), (Civil Action No. 17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 300). For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends [*3]  that Guardant's inventorship MSJ be DENIED and that Guardant's antitrust MSJ be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, and it orders that Guardant's Daubert Motion be DENIED and that FMI's Daubert Motion be GRANTED.1

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86387 *

GUARDANT HEALTH, INC., Plaintiff, v. FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC., Defendant. GUARDANT HEALTH, INC., Plaintiff, v. PERSONAL GENOME DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Defendant.

Prior History: Guardant Health, Inc. v. Found. Med., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152542 (D. Del., Sept. 6, 2019)

CORE TERMS

patents, inventorship, sequence, inventor, reads, invention, Presentation, products, damages, summary judgment, inequitable conduct, Recommendation, apportionment, antitrust, Slide, monopoly power, merger, REDACTED, asserts, biopsy, tests, filtering, quotation, lawsuit, liquid, marks, anticompetitive, monopolization, counterclaims, argues