IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Judgment as a matter of law and new trial denied in DNA analysis dispute, (Jan 8, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson

A jury verdict would stand in a dispute over patent claim relating to the analysis of DNA because the jury was within its rights to credit one party’s expert witness over the other’s.

A holder of a patent related to DNA analysis was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law or new trial, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. The jury had found non-infringement based on crediting one expert over another, and weighing conflicting testimony was within the province of the jury (Natera, Inc. v. CareDx, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB (D. Del. Jan. 3, 2025)).

Natera, Inc. (Natera) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 11,111,544 (the ’544 patent) and 10,655,180 (the ’180 patent), both of which were related to the measurement of DNA in a biological sample. Natera brought suit for infringement of several claims of each patent against CareDx, Inc., (CareDx) based on CareDx’s AlloSure and AlloSeq products. After a five day jury trial, the jury found that the accused products infringed the asserted claims of the ’544 patent but not the ’180 patent, and awarded $96 million in damages.

Natera moved for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial on the issue of infringement of the ’180 patent.

Judgment as a matter of law. The parties’ stipulations and admissions had left only one small part of one claim at issue, step 14(b) of Claim 14 of the ’180 patent, which described a method “wherein the quantity of each allele at a plurality of amplified SNP loci are measured by high-throughput sequencing.” The jury was faced with conflicting expert testimony and supporting documents purporting to show that the accused products either did or did not meet this limitation. The court held that judgment as a matter of law was not appropriate because the jury was within its rights to credit one party’s expert over another when they offered contrary testimony.

New trial. For the same reason, the court held that a new trial was not appropriate. It could not grant a new trial when the jury had been presented with some evidence that could support its verdict, even if there was other evidence to the contrary.

The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.

The Case is No. 1:20-cv-00038-CFC-CJB.

Judge: Connolly, C.

Attorneys: Jack B. Blumenfeld (Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Natera, Inc. Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) for CareDx, Inc.

Companies: Natera, Inc.; CareDx, Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews