Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01662/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01662-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ILLUMINA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATERA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01662-SI 

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE LETTER NO. 5

Re: Dkt. No. 152

On September 23, 2019, the parties filed their fifth discovery dispute letter regarding 

Natera’s special interrogatory asking Illumina for information about the inventiveness of its ‘831 

patent. This order follows. 

On May 17, 2018, Natera filed a motion to dismiss Illumina’s complaint, arguing that 

Illumina’s asserted ‘831 patent was ineligible under Alice/§101. Dkt. No. 24. In its June 26, 2018

order denying the motion to dismiss, the Court concluded Ilumina’s ‘831 patent is directed towards 

a patent ineligible concept – namely, a natural phenomenon. The Court then had to determine if the 

‘831 patent included an inventive concept, thus saving it from ineligibility. The Court found “the 

factual record [was] not sufficient ... to conclude whether there [was] an inventive concept,” and 

on that basis denied the motion “without prejudice to renew on a fuller record.” Dkt. No. 41 at 7. 

The parties’ instant dispute arises from Natera’s special interrogatory (“SROG”) number 18, 

requesting Illumina to “[d]escribe in detail all factual bases and identify all supporting documents 

for any contention [] that the claims of the ‘831 Patent contain an inventive concept sufficient for 

patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101[.]” Dkt. No. 152-1 at 8. Illumina’s response to SROG 18 

states: (1) Natera has failed to make a prima facie claim for invalidity under § 101, presumably 

because the Court denied Natera’s motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds; (2) directs Natera to the 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 153 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

arguments Illumina made in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 32); and (3) directs Natera 

to the USPTO Appeal Board’s decision denying inter partes review. Dkt. No. 152-1 at 8. 

The Court’s June 26, 2018 order makes clear that inventiveness is a fact issue of significant 

importance for discovery. Natera’s request is narrowly tailored and properly directed to the exact 

issue framed by the Court and it is entitled to a comprehensive response. Therefore, the Court orders 

that if Illumina wishes to supplement its response to SRGO 18, it must do so on or before October 

14, 2019 with any non-expert information. Absent a showing of good cause, Illumina will not be 

able to use any evidence in support of its inventiveness argument beyond what is included in its 

response to SROG 18, disclosed through its experts or provided by depositions of fact witnesses 

first deposed after October 14, 2019.. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 153 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 2