Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Veracyte, Inc. sued Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc. and Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The court held a September 1, 2026 hearing concerning Veracyte’s motion to compel discovery and its motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions.
Before and during the hearing, targeted meet-and-confer efforts narrowed the disputes. The parties resolved two issues concerning the motion to compel and all disputes concerning the motion to amend the infringement contentions. The court heard argument on the remaining discovery issues and later issued this order memorializing its bench rulings without limiting or constraining them.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Veracyte’s motion to compel as modified. The parties agreed that defendants would demand emails from their consultants, Drs. Nikiforovs, using up to three search terms and a limit of 3,000 hits. Veracyte confirmed that it continued to withdraw the motion’s remaining issues.
The court granted as unopposed Veracyte’s motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions after defendants agreed to withdraw their opposition. It also approved the parties’ stipulation allowing up to 15 pages each for the reply and sur-reply concerning defendants’ pending motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Finally, the court granted defendants leave to amend their invalidity contentions to add prior art cumulative of their previous disclosures. Veracyte did not object.
Key Takeaways
- Veracyte obtained modified discovery relief limited to three search terms and 3,000 email hits.
- Veracyte may serve amended infringement contentions, and defendants may amend their invalidity contentions with cumulative prior art.
- The parties received five additional pages for their reply and sur-reply on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, permitting briefs of up to 15 pages each.
Why It Matters
The order resolves several procedural disputes by adopting negotiated limits and unopposed amendments. It permits both sides to supplement their patent contentions while imposing defined boundaries on the remaining email discovery.
Because the written order expressly does not limit the rulings announced at the hearing, the hearing record remains relevant to understanding the full scope of the court’s directions.