Veracyte, Inc. v. Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc. et al, No. 2:25-cv-00459 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2026)

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:

21. 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.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of October, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE