Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01662/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01662-5/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 THE PARTIES' 

MOTIONS TO AMEND INVALIDITY 

AND INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS AND ILLUMINA'S 

MOTION TO PRECLUDE PURSUANT

TO FRCP 37

Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 91, 92, 97, 98, 104, 110, 

117

Having considered the papers submitted and arguments made during the May 10, 2019 

hearing, the Court hereby (1) GRANTS Natera’s motion to amend its infringement contentions (Dkt. 

No. 87); (2) GRANTS Natera’s motion to amend its invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 97); (3) 

GRANTS Illumina’s motion to amend its infringement and invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 91); 

and DENIES Illumina’s motion pursuant to FRCP 37 to preclude Natera from relying on allegedly 

withheld non-infringement theories and documents (Dkt. No. 91).1

I. Natera’s Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions

Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6, one example of “circumstances that may, absent undue 

prejudice to the non-moving party, support a finding of good cause [to amend] include[s]: (a) A 

claim construction by the court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment.” 

Natera’s proposed amended infringement contentions are reasonable – they add detail to previously 

disclosed infringement theories in light of the Court’s claim construction order. Dkt. No. 87 at 1 

 

1 The Court also grants the parties’ motions to file under seal (Dkt. Nos. 91, 97, 104, 110, 

and 117) as well as Natera’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document (Dkt. No. 103). 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 122 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 5
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

(Natera’s Motion to Amend Infringement). Further, after Natera filed its initial infringement 

contentions, Illumina produced documents regarding the operations of Illumina’s accused products 

– some of which were produced as recently as December 2018. Dkt. No. 87 at 3 (Natera’s Motion 

to Amend Infringement).

Illumina argues amendment is improper because it is untimely – Natera should have known 

the Court would not adopt its proposed claim constructions and therefore should have made these 

amendments earlier. Dkt. No. 95 at 4-6 (Illumina’s Opposition). Illumina also argues the 

amendments are based purely on public documents available when Natera first drafted its 

infringement contentions. Id. at 7-8. The Court is not persuaded by either of these arguments. 

Natera’s motion to amend its infringement contentions is GRANTED.

II. Natera’s Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions 

Natera seeks to amend its invalidity contentions based on documents and information it 

received from third party subpoenas. Dkt. No. 97-4 at 1 (Natera’s Motion to Amend Invalidity). 

Illumina argues the amendments are based on public documents that were available when 

Natera drafted its original invalidity contentions and are therefore untimely. Dkt. No. 115-4 at 1 

(Illumina’s Opposition).

Natera argues that while some of the documents may have been publicly available, it did not 

know where or how to locate them, and that many of its amendments are based on non-public 

documents, such as lab notes, internal presentations, and product manuals. Dkt. No. 120 at 7. 

A comparison of Natera’s original invalidity contentions with its amended contentions 

shows the amendments are not extensive and do not seem to put forth new invalidity theories –

rather, the amendments bolster existing theories. As such, Natera’s motion to amend its invalidity 

contentions is GRANTED. 

III. Illumina’s Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions 

Natera does not oppose Illumina’s request so long as Natera can amend its infringement 

contentions. Dkt. No. 110-11 at 25 (“...Natera informed Illumina that it would not oppose 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 122 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Illumina’s amended invalidity contentions ... if Illumina would not oppose Natera’s amended 

infringement contentions ... Natera stands by that representation.”). The Court has granted Natera’s 

motion to amend infringement contentions. Therefore, Illumina’s motion to amend its invalidity 

contentions is unopposed and its motion is hereby GRANTED. 

IV. Illumina’s Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions 

In December 2016, Illumina informed Natera that Natera’s Panorama Prenatal Test infringed 

Illumina’s ‘831 patent. In May 2017, prior to the lawsuit being filed, Illumina sent Natera an 

infringement claim chart and Natera immediately forwarded the claim chart, and various other 

Natera documents, to its opinion counsel. Two opinions2 were drafted, also prior to the lawsuit 

being filed, that discuss various non-infringement positions. Specifically, the opinions discuss noninfringement theories regarding: (1) clonal amplification as the third step of claims 1 or 14 of the 

’831 patent, and (2) universal amplification as the first step of claim 14 of the ’831 patent. In March 

2018, the same chart that was previously provided to Natera (and Natera’s opinion counsel) was 

filed with Illumina’s complaint. Dkt. No. 1-6 (Exhibit 6 to Illumina’s Complaint). The documents 

provided to Natera’s opinion counsel and the theories put forth by opinion counsel were not 

disclosed to Illumina until March 1, 2019, the deadline to produce counsel opinions. Dkt. No. 91-4 

at 7 (Illumina’s Motion). 

Illumina seeks to amend its infringement contentions based on the newly received Natera 

documents that were given to Natera’s opinion counsel. The proposed amendments allegedly 

bolster Illumina’s infringement contentions regarding clonal amplification and universal 

amplification. Illumina justifies its timing by arguing that Natera did not disclose any noninfringement positions in its July 23, 2018 response to special interrogatories requesting all of 

Natera’s non-infringement positions, and that the documents Natera produced to its outside opinion 

counsel should have been produced earlier in this case. Id. at 7. 

 

2 Specifically, the opinions are referred to as the MannyV and the Jackson-Walker opinions 

by the parties. See Dkt. Nos. 91-11 (MannyV Opinion) and 91-15 (Jackson-Walker Opinion). 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 122 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Natera opposes Illumina’s request to amend infringement contentions as improperly 

introducing new infringement theories. First, Natera argues that Illumina has never accused clonal 

amplification or universal amplification prior to the instant requested amendments. Rather, Natera 

argues that Illumina’s early claim charts referred to an obsolete version of Natera’s Panorama test. 

Dkt. No. 110-11 at 1 (Natera’s Opposition). Because of this, Natera argues its opinion counsel were 

merely speculating about what Illumina might argue with respect to the current version of the 

Panorama test.3 Dkt. No. 110-11 at 3 (Natera’s Opposition). In its responses to interrogatories, 

Natera explained to Illumina that Illumina seemed to be making claims based on an obsolete test 

and therefore, Natera argues, the onus was on Illumina to follow up on information about the 

operative Panorama version. Dkt. No. 110-11 at 1, 14 (Natera’s Opposition). Natera concludes it 

had no duty to disclose these non-infringement theories because Illumina had not made infringement 

allegations regarding clonal or universal amplification. Id. at 14, 16.

Second, Natera argues that based on the documents it produced to Illumina in August 2018, 

Illumina could have gleaned the same information contained in the documents Natera gave to its 

opinion counsel. Because Illumina could have deduced the same information, and therefore the 

same infringement theories, from the documents produced in August 2018, Natera argues Illumina’s 

instant request is untimely. Dkt. No. 110-11 at 16-17.

While Illumina could have been more diligent in following up on Natera’s interrogatory 

responses, Natera is not prejudiced by Illumina amending its infringement contentions. Therefore, 

Illumina’s motion to amend its infringement contentions is GRANTED. 

 

3

Illumina counters this argument by pointing to a much debated footnote in the Jackson 

Walker opinion that reads: 

Note: After delivery of the oral opinion to Natera reflected herein on January 16, 

2017, Natera received an allegation from the patent holder. Illumina. charting a 

version of Natera’s Panorama NIPT methods onto claims 1 and 14 of the ‘831 patent. 

Illumina’s charts appear to have charted version l of the Panorama NIPT methods, 

which was not in use after the issuance of the ‘831 patent. Based on these charts, 

Illumina appears to be accusing the clonal (fourth) amplification step of Natera’s 

Panorama NIPT methods of fulfilling the third amplification step of claims 1 and 

14. 

Dkt. No. 91-15 at 21 (emphasis added). Illumina argues this footnote establishes that 

Natera was on notice that Illumina was alleging infringement of the clonal amplification step. 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 122 Filed 05/10/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

V. Illumina’s Motion to Preclude Undisclosed Non-Infringement Positions Pursuant to 

FRCP 37

Illumina seeks to base its amended infringement contentions on various documents produced 

by Natera and seeks this Court to simultaneously preclude Natera from relying on those same 

documents and non-infringement theories derived therefrom. 

Illumina will not be prejudiced by Natera using these documents and non-infringement 

theories. Illumina’s motion to preclude pursuant to FRCP 37 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 122 Filed 05/10/19 Page 5 of 5