TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. & University of Washington v. Guardant Health, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware addresses post-trial motions in a patent infringement action involving TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc., the University of Washington, and Guardant Health, Inc. The court denies Guardant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and its Rule 60(b) motion, while granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, an ongoing royalty, and other relief.

Holdings

1. The motion for JMOL or a new trial was denied because substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Guardant practiced the claimed grouping, separating, confirming, comparing, identifying, and generating steps, including in the required sequence.
2. The motion for JMOL or a new trial was denied because substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Guardant practiced the grouping, collapsing, comparing, and analyzing limitations of Claims 24 and 30 in the required order.
3. The accused services could support infringement liability because substantial evidence showed that Guardant itself processed samples from those services using accused products that performed all claimed method steps.
4. The court denied JMOL or a new trial on willfulness because substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Guardant's infringement was deliberate or intentional.
5. The court denied JMOL or a new trial on damages because substantial evidence supported the jury's $83.4 million reasonable-royalty award.
6. The court declined to enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 despite the jury's willfulness finding.
7. The court denied attorneys' fees and costs because the case was not exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
8. The court awarded an ongoing royalty of 6% for continued sales of the adjudicated infringing products.
9. The court awarded supplemental damages for Guardant's infringing sales from July 1, 2023, through February 5, 2024, at a 6% royalty rate.
10. The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prime rate compounded quarterly and post-judgment interest at 4.76%.
11. Guardant was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) based on statements made in a post-trial petition concerning reexamination of the '631 patent.
12. Guardant was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5) because the post-trial reexamination statements did not make continued prospective royalty enforcement inequitable and did not constitute a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury's findings that Guardant practiced the claimed bioinformatics steps of the '631 and '127 patents in the required order.
2. Whether Guardant's Companion and Explore services infringed the asserted method claims.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury's willfulness finding.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury's $83.4 million reasonable-royalty damages award.
5. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
6. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
7. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to an ongoing royalty, supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest.
8. Whether Guardant was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) based on post-trial statements made in connection with reexamination of the '631 patent.

Disposition

other