Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. ("GenomeDx") respectfully moves to compel Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios") to produce thirty-four (34) documents that Helios has improperly withheld from production on claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. These documents are responsive to GenomeDx's First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 22, 23, and 31 and are

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Parties and the Dispute GenomeDx is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4750 Torrey Pines Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130. GenomeDx is a recognized leader in molecular diagnostics for prostate cancer prognosis. Its flagship product, the Decipher® Prostate genomic classifier test, utilizes a proprietary 22-gene expression panel to predict prostate cancer outcomes, includi

III. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), a party may move for an order compelling production of documents when the responding party "fails to produce documents . . . as requested under Rule 34." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). The moving party must demonstrate that the discovery sought is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ

IV. ARGUMENT A. Helios Waived Attorney-Client Privilege by Disclosing Documents to Third-Party Investors The privilege log itself reveals that multiple challenged documents — spanning Categories A, B, and D — were shared with representatives of Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP and Aether Life Sciences Partners. This disclosure to third-party investors is fatal to Helios's privilege claims. The foundational requirement o

V. RELEVANCE OF THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS The thirty-four documents are directly relevant to multiple critical issues in this case, and their production is proportional to the needs of this litigation. Willful Infringement. Helios's pre-launch awareness of and response to GenomeDx's patent portfolio is highly relevant to GenomeDx's claim for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. To establish willful infringement, Geno

VI. REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW If the Court is unable to resolve the privilege disputes based on the privilege log entries and the arguments presented in this memorandum and supporting papers, GenomeDx respectfully requests that the Court conduct an in camera review of the thirty-four challenged documents to determine whether the privilege assertions are properly maintained. See United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, GenomeDx respectfully requests that this Court enter an order:

1. Compelling production. Ordering Helios to produce all thirty-four (34) withheld documents identified in Exhibit E to the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev within ten (10) business days of the Court's order;

2. Subject to the Protective Order. Requiring that documents be produced subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered by this Court on December 18, 2025, with appropriate confidentiality designations as Helios deems necessary;

3. Redaction alternative. In the alternative, if the Court finds that narrowly defined portions of certain documents contain genuinely privileged attorney-client communications, ordering production of those documents with targeted redactions limited to the genuinely privileged content, so that the remainder of each document — including all business, commercial, and factual content — is produced;

4. Expenses and fees. Awarding GenomeDx its reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in bringing this motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), which provides that the court "must" award reasonable expenses incurred in making a motion to compel when the motion is granted, unless the opposing party's nondisclosure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award o

5. Further relief. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

VIII. CONCLUSION Helios has improperly withheld thirty-four documents from production by asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over materials that were shared with third-party investors — Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP and Aether Life Sciences Partners — disseminated broadly among non-lawyer business personnel across multiple departments, shared with external non-attorney consultants, and cre

1. On January 15, 2026, I sent a detailed meet-and-confer letter to Marcus Pellegrini and Danielle Forrest of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP identifying the thirty-four (34) challenged privilege log entries by Bates range and privilege log entry number and requesting production or, in the alternative, additional information to support the privilege claims. (Declaration of Peter Vassiliev, Ex. A.)

2. On January 21, 2026, Danielle Forrest of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP responded in writing, maintaining all privilege assertions and refusing to produce the thirty-four documents or provide any additional detail. (Declaration of Peter Vassiliev, Ex. B.)

3. On January 24, 2026, counsel for the parties conducted a telephonic meet-and-confer conference. Participating on behalf of GenomeDx were Peter Vassiliev and Wendy Schultz of Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Participating on behalf of Helios were Danielle Forrest and Owen Chu of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP. During the call, the parties discussed each category of challenged documents and explored potential compromises, includ