Veracyte, Inc. v. Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERACYTE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SONIC HEALTHCARE USA, INC., and
CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00459-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court held a hearing in the above-captioned case on September 1, 2026 regarding two
pending motions between Plaintiff Veracyte, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Sonic Healthcare
USA, Inc. and Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”).
(Dkt. Nos. 60 and 70.) Through targeted meet and confer efforts, the Parties resolved two disputes
as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc. and Clinical Pathology
Laboratories, Inc. (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. No. 60) and all disputes as to Plaintiff’s Opposed
Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Infringement Contentions (“Motion for Leave”) (Dkt. No.
70). The Court heard oral argument on the unresolved disputes from the Motion to Compel.
This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the motions, including additional
instructions that were given to the Parties. While this Order summarizes the Court’s rulings as
announced into the record during the hearing, this Order in no way limits or constrains such rulings
from the bench. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
Case 2:25-cv-00459-JRG Document 115 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
1. 	Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 60)
The Motion was GRANTED-AS-MODIFIED. The Parties agreed that Defendants would
demand emails of the Defendants’ consultants, Drs. Nikiforovs, for up to three terms and 3,000
hits. The Parties confirmed on the record that Plaintiff maintained its previous withdrawal of the
remaining issues. (Dkt. No. 79 at 2.)
2. 	Motion for Leave (Dkt. No. 70)
The motion was GRANTED as unopposed. The Parties agreed on the record that
Defendants would withdraw their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Amended
Infringement Contentions. The Court GRANTED the Parties’ stipulation that the Parties would
receive an additional five pages for their reply and sur-reply to Defendants’ pending Motion for
Judgement on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 83), resulting in a total of up to 15 pages for each Party.
3. 	Leave for Defendants to Amend Their Invalidity Contentions
At the hearing, the Parties raised the issue of whether Defendants have leave to amend their
invalidity contentions with cumulative prior art. The Court GRANTED LEAVE for Defendants
to amend their invalidity contentions and ORDERED that such amendments would include
additional prior art that is cumulative of Defendants’ previous disclosures. Plaintiff did not object.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00459-JRG Document 115 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>