Background and Context
Ravgen, Inc., a company involved in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), filed a series of lawsuits against several companies in the same industry, including Biora Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as Progenity, Inc.). The lawsuit in question, Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc., was filed in 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:20-cv-01734)[4].
Patents and Allegations
Ravgen asserted two patents (US patent numbers 7,727,720 and 7,332,277) in its lawsuits, claiming that Biora Therapeutics and other defendants had infringed upon these patents. The patents cover technology related to NIPT, a field in which both companies operate. Ravgen alleged that Biora Therapeutics had been aware of these patents since at least 2015 but had not reached a licensing agreement[4].
Litigation Strategy and Outcomes
The litigation strategy employed by WilmerHale, the law firm representing Biora Therapeutics, among other defendants, was crucial in achieving favorable outcomes.
Release Argument
One of the key arguments made by WilmerHale was the "release argument." This argument, which was not uncovered by other defendants, involved a provision in a license agreement between Ravgen and another company. It was contended that this provision released claims for past infringement against companies like Biora Therapeutics. This argument was successful in both the Quest and Biora cases, leading to a dismissal of Ravgen's claims against Biora without any payment[1].
Trial Narrative
WilmerHale developed a strong trial narrative supported by facts and evidence. For example, in the case against Natera, the narrative highlighted that Natera developed a highly accurate prenatal diagnostic test, while Ravgen's test was found to be ineffective by independent scientists. This narrative helped to demonstrate why the defendants should win[1].
Witness Testimony
The use of credible witnesses was another critical aspect. For instance, Dr. Wolfgang Holzgreve, a leading researcher in the field, testified that Ravgen's test did not work as claimed. This testimony significantly supported the defendants' narrative[1].
Specific Outcomes for Biora Therapeutics
Summary Judgment Motion
WilmerHale filed a summary judgment motion for Biora Therapeutics, arguing that Biora was released under the same license agreement as Quest. After hearing the argument, US District Court Judge Hall issued a tentative ruling granting the motion, which would have eliminated all of Ravgen's damages claims against Biora. Subsequently, Ravgen dismissed its claims with prejudice, and Biora did not pay any amount to Ravgen[1].
Discovery Disputes and Court Rulings
During the litigation, there were several discovery disputes between the parties. Ravgen sought the production of unredacted copies of certain documents, including financial valuation spreadsheets and lab notebooks.
Financial Valuation Spreadsheets
The court denied Ravgen's motion to compel the production of unredacted financial valuation spreadsheets, ruling that these documents were protected by attorney-client privilege because they reflected the substance of counsel's communications and mental impressions[4].
Lab Notebooks and Communications
The court granted in part Ravgen's motion to compel the production of unredacted versions of lab notebooks and certain communications. For example, the court ordered the production of Lab Notebook 17, which pertained to the development of Biora's NIPT test[4].
Inequitable Conduct Argument
WilmerHale also raised a strong inequitable conduct argument against Ravgen, alleging that Ravgen had committed fraud on the patent office. This argument, though rare and challenging to prove, was considered one of the strongest inequitable conduct claims seen in over 28 years of practice by the lead attorney, Michael Summersgill[1].
Comparison with Other Cases
The outcome for Biora Therapeutics was significantly different from other cases involving Ravgen. For instance, Labcorp was ordered to pay $373 million to Ravgen, while Myriad settled for $34 million. In contrast, Biora Therapeutics secured a zero-money dismissal with prejudice, highlighting the effectiveness of WilmerHale's litigation strategy[1].
Key Takeaways
- Effective Litigation Strategy: The success in the Biora Therapeutics case underscores the importance of creative and thorough legal arguments, such as the release argument and strong trial narratives.
- Witness Testimony: The use of credible witnesses can significantly impact the outcome of a case.
- Discovery Disputes: Careful management of discovery disputes is crucial in patent litigation.
- Inequitable Conduct: Strong inequitable conduct arguments can be a powerful tool in defending against patent infringement claims.
FAQs
Q: What were the key patents involved in the Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc. lawsuit?
A: The key patents involved were US patent numbers 7,727,720 and 7,332,277, both related to non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) technology.
Q: What was the "release argument" used by WilmerHale?
A: The "release argument" involved a provision in a license agreement between Ravgen and another company, which released claims for past infringement against companies like Biora Therapeutics.
Q: How did the court rule on the discovery disputes regarding financial valuation spreadsheets?
A: The court denied Ravgen's motion to compel the production of unredacted financial valuation spreadsheets, ruling that these documents were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Q: What was the outcome of the lawsuit for Biora Therapeutics?
A: Biora Therapeutics secured a zero-money dismissal with prejudice, meaning Ravgen dismissed its claims without Biora paying any amount.
Q: What role did witness testimony play in the case?
A: Witness testimony, particularly from Dr. Wolfgang Holzgreve, played a significant role in supporting the defendants' narrative and challenging Ravgen's claims.
Cited Sources
- WilmerHale, "We took Ravgen head-on'- How we won zero-damages and others didn't," Life Sciences IP Review.
- Justia, "Case No. 1:20-cv-01734-DDD-NYW," Justia.
- Patexia, "Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc.," Patexia.
- Casetext, "Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc.," Casetext.
- GovInfo, "Case 1:20-cv-01734-DDD-NYW Document 112 Filed 06/29/21," GovInfo.
Last updated: 2025-01-15
