Caredx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding a claim was not inventive where “each step in the purported invention require[d] only conventional techniques and commercially available technology”
• affirming the lower court which “recognized that CareDx’s expert testimony and other extrinsic evidence was contrary to, and therefore could not overcome, the admissions in the specification”
• “These exceptions exist because monopolizing the basic tools of 23 scientific work ‘might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.’”
• “wherein the . . . assay detects the [target] cfDNA . . . when the [target] cfDNA make up at least 0.03% of the total circulating cfDNA in the biological sample”
• “These exceptions exist because monopolizing the basic tools of scientific work 9 ‘might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.’” (quoting Mayo, 10 566 U.S. at 71)
• “Under Third Circuit law, which governs the procedures by which this case is handled, a district court may revisit a prior decision sua sponte so long as it has not entered a final judgment depriving it of jurisdiction to reconsider the issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Broadband Itv, Inc. v. amazon.com, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2024-09-03· cited 23×

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2012-03-20· cited 915×
• Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-08-01· cited 524×
• Berkheimer v. Hp Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2018-02-08· cited 512×
• Diamond v. Diehr
  Supreme Court· 1981-03-03· cited 498×
• Diamond v. Chakrabarty
  Supreme Court· 1980-06-16· cited 377×
• Parker v. Flook
  Supreme Court· 1978-06-22· cited 347×
• Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2017-06-16· cited 111×
• Sri Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2019-03-20· cited 106×
• Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-06-12· cited 100×
• Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2019-02-06· cited 50×
• Genetic Veterinary Sciences v. Laboklin Gmbh & Co. Kg
  Federal Circuit· 2019-07-29· cited 30×
• Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid
  Federal Circuit· 2018-10-09· cited 12×
• Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2020-03-17· cited 9×