1013-00005 · Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc · Discovery/Subpoenas

draft-subpoena-corinth-ventures.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

20 / 35 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

DRAFT — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY — NOT YET ISSUED OR SERVED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

HELIOS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL

Hon. Jessica W. Langston Magistrate Judge David R. Cabrera

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION

Issued Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45

I. SUBPOENA IDENTIFICATION AND ISSUANCE INFORMATION

This Subpoena to Produce Documents, Electronically Stored Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action is issued from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in connection with the above-captioned civil action.

This Subpoena has been prepared by:

Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105

Attorneys for Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.

Contact Attorney: Peter Vassiliev, Lead Associate Telephone: (415) 555-7800

Email: pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com

Supervising Partner: Catherine Bloom, Responsible Partner Telephone: (415) 555-7812

Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com

Date of Preparation: February 2026

DRAFT — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY — NOT YET ISSUED OR SERVED. This document is an internal working draft prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP for the purpose of attorney review and strategic evaluation. It has not been filed with any court, has not been issued by the Clerk of Court, and has not been served upon any party or non-party. This document is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and should not be distributed outside of the Calderwood & Harkness LLP litigation team without the express authorization of Catherine Bloom.

II. IDENTIFICATION OF PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM SUBPOENA IS DIRECTED

This Subpoena is directed to:

Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP 399 Boylston Street, Suite 1100 Boston, Massachusetts 02116

Entity Type: Delaware limited partnership

Managing Director: Priya Chandrasekaran

Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP ("Corinth") is a venture capital fund organized as a Delaware limited partnership with approximately $2.1 billion in assets under management. Corinth is the majority equity holder in Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"), holding approximately 58.7% of Helios's outstanding equity. By virtue of this significant equity position, Corinth and its representatives — including its Managing Director, Priya Chandrasekaran — have maintained substantial involvement in, and access to information regarding, Helios's business strategy, product development, intellectual property portfolio, and commercial activities, including the development and launch of the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier at issue in this litigation.

Corinth is a non-party to this litigation. However, Corinth is believed to possess documents and electronically stored information that are directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including evidence bearing on Helios's pre-launch knowledge of GenomeDx's patent portfolio, Helios's procurement and dissemination of freedom-to-operate analyses, the willfulness of Helios's alleged infringement, and the scope and validity of privilege assertions that Helios has made with respect to documents shared between Helios and its investors.

III. COMMAND TO PRODUCE

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents and electronically stored information described in the attached Schedule A (Section V of this Subpoena), at the following location:

Place of Production:

Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105

Alternatively, at Corinth's election, production may be made via secure electronic transfer to counsel for Plaintiff at the electronic production portal maintained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, to be coordinated with Peter Vassiliev at the contact information set forth above.

Date and Time for Production: The documents and electronically stored information described in Schedule A shall be produced no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Subpoena, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2). The specific compliance date shall be inserted upon issuance and service.

Production of the documents and electronically stored information described herein may be made in lieu of personal attendance at the place of production. If Corinth elects to produce documents by mail or by secure electronic transfer, such production must be received by Calderwood & Harkness LLP no later than the compliance date specified above.

Compliance with the Stipulated Protective Order. The parties to this litigation have entered into a Stipulated Protective Order, which was entered by the Honorable Jessica W. Langston on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. [__]). The Stipulated Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality designation framework, under which documents and information may be designated as either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." All documents produced by Corinth in response to this Subpoena shall be governed by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. Corinth may designate any documents it produces as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" in accordance with the procedures set forth therein. Calderwood & Harkness LLP and its client, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., agree to be bound by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order with respect to all documents produced by Corinth, and will treat all such documents in accordance with the restrictions applicable to the designated confidentiality tier.

IV. DEFINITIONS

A. Defined Terms

For purposes of this Subpoena, including the document requests set forth in Schedule A, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

1. "Helios" or "HPD" means Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered at 200 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 600, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140, and includes its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as any person or entity acting on its behalf.

2. "GenomeDx" or "GDT" means Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4750 Torrey Pines Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, and includes its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as any person or entity acting on its behalf.

3. "Corinth" means Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, a Delaware limited partnership with its principal office at 399 Boylston Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02116, and includes its general partner, managing director, partners, employees, agents, representatives, and any person or entity acting on its behalf.

4. "ProstaSignal™" means the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier, a 24-gene expression-based prognostic test for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy, which was commercially launched by Helios on or about October 7, 2024, and includes all versions, iterations, prototypes, and developmental precursors of the test, as well as any associated assay, algorithm, software, or platform used in connection with the administration, processing, or reporting of such test.

5. "Decipher®" means GenomeDx's Decipher® Prostate genomic classifier test, a clinically validated genomic test for prostate cancer prognostication, including all versions and iterations thereof, as well as any associated assay, algorithm, software, or platform used in connection with the administration, processing, or reporting of such test.

6. "Patents-in-Suit" means the following United States patents asserted by GenomeDx in this litigation:

(a) U.S. Patent No. 10,438,271 (the "'271 Patent"), entitled "Methods and Compositions for Prognostic Assessment of Prostate Cancer," issued on October 8, 2019;

(b) U.S. Patent No. 11,204,893 (the "'893 Patent"), entitled "Genomic Classifiers for Prostate Cancer Prognosis," issued on December 21, 2021; and

(c) U.S. Patent No. 11,891,647 (the "'647 Patent"), entitled "Multi-Gene Expression Panels and Methods for Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer," issued on February 6, 2024.

7. "Freedom-to-Operate" or "FTO" means any analysis, opinion, assessment, evaluation, memorandum, letter, report, or presentation — whether prepared internally or by outside counsel, patent counsel, technical advisors, or any other third party — addressing, evaluating, or opining on the risk of infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, including but not limited to the Patents-in-Suit, any other GenomeDx patents, or any other patents potentially relevant to ProstaSignal™. The term includes, without limitation, patent clearance opinions, non-infringement opinions, invalidity opinions, right-to-use opinions, patent landscape analyses, and patent risk assessments.

8. "Document" or "Documents" shall be construed in the broadest sense permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall include all writings, recordings, and electronically stored information of every kind, regardless of the medium on which they are stored, including but not limited to: memoranda, correspondence, letters, emails, text messages (including SMS and Westmark Software), instant messages (including messages transmitted via Meridian Solutions, Northgate Data Systems, Meridian Services Inc., Harborline Technologies, or similar platforms), presentations (including Northgate Services Inc. or Tidewater Data Systems files), spreadsheets (including Excel files), board materials, meeting minutes, notes (whether handwritten or typed), reports, analyses, opinions, evaluations, assessments, calendars, schedules, financial models, term sheets, contracts, agreements, invoices, receipts, photographs, videos, audio recordings, social media posts, website content, databases, metadata, and all drafts, revisions, and non-identical copies of any of the foregoing.

9. "Communication" or "Communications" shall be construed broadly to encompass any oral, written, or electronic exchange of information between two or more persons or entities, regardless of the medium or manner of transmission, including but not limited to face-to-face conversations, telephone calls, video conferences, voice messages, emails, text messages, instant messages, letters, memoranda, and any other form of transmission of information.

10. "You" or "Your" refers to Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, including its general partner, managing director, partners (general and limited), employees, agents, representatives, advisors, consultants, and any persons or entities acting on its behalf or at its direction.

11. "Relating to" or "Concerning" shall be construed broadly to mean referring to, describing, evidencing, constituting, mentioning, reflecting, regarding, pertaining to, connected with, commenting on, responsive to, having any logical connection to, or being in any way legally relevant to the subject matter described.

12. "Person" means any natural person, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, association, trust, governmental entity, or any other legal entity.

B. Temporal Scope

Unless otherwise specified in a particular document request, the document requests set forth in Schedule A cover the period from January 1, 2019 — the year in which Helios was founded — through the present date (i.e., the date on which this Subpoena is served or, if later, the date on which responsive documents are produced).

C. Instructions

The following instructions apply to all document requests set forth in Schedule A:

1. Organization of Production. Documents shall be produced either (a) as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, maintaining the file structure, folder organization, and custodial associations in which they are maintained, or (b) organized and labeled to correspond with the categories and request numbers set forth in Schedule A.

2. Format of Production — Electronically Stored Information. Electronically stored information ("ESI") shall be produced in one of the following formats, at Corinth's election: (a) native file format, with all associated metadata intact and preserved; or (b) single-page TIFF images (300 DPI, Group IV compression) accompanied by extracted text files (in .txt format, one per document) and a load file (in concordance .dat format or relativity-compatible format) containing all available metadata fields, including but not limited to custodian, author, date created, date modified, date sent, date received, sender, recipient(s), CC, BCC, subject line, file name, file path, file extension, and file size. The format of production shall be consistent with the specifications set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order entered December 18, 2025, and any ESI protocol agreed to by the parties.

3. Privilege Log. To the extent that Corinth withholds any document or communication on the basis of any privilege (including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any common-interest privilege), Corinth shall provide a privilege log that conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e)(2)(A). The privilege log shall identify each withheld document with sufficient specificity to enable the requesting party to assess the validity of the privilege claim, and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each withheld document:

(a) the date of the document or communication;

(b) the author or sender of the document or communication;

(d) a description of the general subject matter of the document or communication, stated with sufficient specificity to permit assessment of the privilege claim without revealing privileged content;

(e) the type of document (e.g., email, memorandum, presentation, instant message);

(f) the specific privilege or protection asserted (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege); and

(g) the factual basis for each asserted privilege or protection.

4. Meet and Confer. Before filing any motion to quash or modify this Subpoena, Corinth is requested to meet and confer in good faith with counsel for GenomeDx regarding any objections, concerns, or issues relating to the scope, burden, or terms of this Subpoena. Counsel for GenomeDx is willing to discuss reasonable modifications to the scope or timing of production to minimize any undue burden on Corinth as a non-party, consistent with GenomeDx's legitimate discovery needs.

5. Continuing Obligation. If, after the date of initial production, Corinth identifies or comes into possession of additional documents responsive to this Subpoena that were not included in the initial production, Corinth shall promptly supplement its production to include such documents.

V. SCHEDULE A: DOCUMENTS AND CATEGORIES REQUESTED

Request No. 1 — Investment Memoranda Relating to Helios

All investment memoranda, investment committee presentations, deal screening reports, deal summaries, partnership meeting materials, and funding approval documents prepared by or for Corinth in connection with any investment in Helios, including but not limited to Corinth's Series A investment in Helios and any subsequent funding rounds (including Series B, Series C, bridge financings, or any other equity or debt investments), to the extent such documents discuss, reference, analyze, evaluate, or mention any of the following:

(a) GenomeDx, GenomeDx's business, or GenomeDx's products or services;

(b) GenomeDx's patent portfolio, including any of the Patents-in-Suit (the '271 Patent, the '893 Patent, and/or the '647 Patent);

(d) any intellectual property risks, patent infringement risks, or freedom-to-operate concerns associated with Helios's ProstaSignal™ product or any other Helios product; or

(e) the competitive landscape for genomic prognostic tests in prostate cancer, to the extent such analysis references GenomeDx or the Decipher® test.

Request No. 2 — Due Diligence Reports and Analyses

All due diligence reports, memoranda, summaries, analyses, checklists, and work papers prepared by or on behalf of Corinth relating to the evaluation of Helios as a prospective or existing portfolio company, including but not limited to:

(a) intellectual property due diligence reports, including any assessments of Helios's owned and licensed intellectual property;

(b) freedom-to-operate analyses or summaries thereof, whether prepared by Corinth's internal personnel, Helios's counsel, Corinth's outside counsel, or any other third party;

(c) patent landscape analyses addressing the field of genomic prognostic testing for prostate cancer or any related technology area;

(d) competitive assessments, market analyses, or competitive intelligence reports referencing GenomeDx, the Decipher® test, or any other competing genomic classifier;

(e) any third-party opinions, reports, or analyses commissioned by Corinth or provided to Corinth by Helios or Helios's counsel concerning Helios's intellectual property position, freedom to operate, or risk of infringement of third-party patents; and

(f) any technical assessments or scientific diligence reports evaluating the ProstaSignal™ assay, algorithm, or gene panel in relation to prior art, published literature, or competing technologies, to the extent such assessments reference GenomeDx, GenomeDx's patents, or the Decipher® test.

Request No. 3 — Board Observation Notes and Board Materials

All notes, memoranda, reports, summaries, and materials prepared by or for any Corinth partner, employee, or representative in connection with attendance at, observation of, or participation in any meeting of the Helios board of directors, any committee of the Helios board of directors, or any advisory board or similar governance body of Helios, including but not limited to:

(a) board observation notes prepared by any Corinth representative before, during, or after any Helios board meeting;

(b) board packages, board decks, and presentation materials distributed to Corinth in advance of, during, or following any Helios board meeting;

(d) any internal Corinth summaries, debriefs, memoranda, or reports prepared following any Helios board meeting;

to the extent that such documents discuss, reference, or mention any of the following topics:

(i) GenomeDx, GenomeDx's business, or GenomeDx's products or services;

(ii) GenomeDx's patents, including any of the Patents-in-Suit;

(iii) the Decipher® test or any competitive analysis involving the Decipher® test;

(iv) any freedom-to-operate analysis, patent clearance opinion, or intellectual property risk assessment relating to ProstaSignal™;

(v) patent infringement risk, patent litigation risk, or potential patent enforcement actions by GenomeDx or any other third party; or

(vi) the development, clinical validation, regulatory strategy, or commercial launch of ProstaSignal™, to the extent such discussions address intellectual property considerations.

Request No. 4 — Communications Concerning GenomeDx's Patent Portfolio

All communications (including emails, letters, instant messages, text messages, meeting notes, calendar invitations, and any other form of written or electronic communication) between or among Corinth personnel (including, without limitation, Priya Chandrasekaran and any other Corinth partner, associate, analyst, or employee) and any officer, director, employee, consultant, or agent of Helios (including, without limitation, Dr. Nathan Ashford, Dr. Elaine Kossack, Sara Whitmore, and Derek Mallinson) that discuss, reference, mention, or relate to any of the following:

(a) GenomeDx's patent portfolio, including any specific patents owned by or licensed to GenomeDx;

(b) any of the Patents-in-Suit (the '271 Patent, the '893 Patent, and/or the '647 Patent);

(c) any freedom-to-operate analysis conducted by or for Helios with respect to ProstaSignal™ or any other Helios product;

(d) any assessment of the risk that ProstaSignal™ or any component thereof might infringe one or more patents held by GenomeDx; or

(e) any discussions regarding the possibility of obtaining a license from GenomeDx or otherwise resolving any intellectual property issues with GenomeDx.

Request No. 5 — Communications Concerning Helios's FTO Analysis for ProstaSignal™

All communications between or among Corinth personnel (including, without limitation, Priya Chandrasekaran) and any third party — including, without limitation, outside counsel such as Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, any other law firm, any patent counsel, any patent agent, any scientific or technical advisor, and any other consultant or advisor — concerning, discussing, referencing, or relating to:

(a) any freedom-to-operate analysis, patent clearance opinion, or infringement risk assessment relating to the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier;

(b) any analysis of any of the Patents-in-Suit (the '271 Patent, the '893 Patent, and/or the '647 Patent) in connection with ProstaSignal™;

(d) any opinion or assessment of the validity or enforceability of any of the Patents-in-Suit or any other GenomeDx patents; or

(e) any recommendation or strategy concerning the mitigation of patent infringement risk with respect to ProstaSignal™, including design-around strategies, licensing negotiations, or inter partes review petitions.

Note regarding privilege: This Request is not intended to compel the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege to the extent that Corinth was a direct client of the attorney who rendered the advice at issue. However, this Request does seek documents that were shared by Helios or Helios's counsel with Corinth in Corinth's capacity as an investor, shareholder, or board observer, which may fall outside the scope of Helios's attorney-client privilege or may constitute a waiver of any such privilege. To the extent Corinth asserts any privilege or common-interest protection over responsive documents, Corinth is directed to identify such documents on a privilege log in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section IV.C.3 above.

Request No. 6 — Portfolio Company Monitoring Reports

All periodic portfolio company monitoring reports, quarterly investment reviews, annual investment reviews, fund performance reports, limited partner advisory committee ("LPAC") materials, and any other internal Corinth fund reports, updates, or memoranda that discuss, reference, or address Helios's competitive position, market opportunity, product pipeline, regulatory status, or intellectual property matters, to the extent such documents reference, mention, or relate to:

(a) GenomeDx or the Decipher® test;

(b) GenomeDx's patents, including any of the Patents-in-Suit;

(d) any competitive threat posed by GenomeDx to Helios; or

(e) any risk factor, contingency, or uncertainty associated with Helios's intellectual property position.

Request No. 7 — Documents Concerning ProstaSignal™ Commercial Launch

All documents in Corinth's possession, custody, or control concerning, relating to, or reflecting the commercial launch of ProstaSignal™ on or about October 7, 2024, including but not limited to:

(a) marketing plans, go-to-market strategies, and launch timelines;

(b) launch readiness assessments and checklists;

(d) competitive positioning analyses comparing ProstaSignal™ to competing products, including the Decipher® test;

(e) any assessment, analysis, or discussion of risks relating to GenomeDx's patent rights, potential patent infringement claims, or potential enforcement actions by GenomeDx;

(f) any communications between Corinth and Helios concerning the timing, strategy, or readiness of the ProstaSignal™ commercial launch; and

(g) any post-launch performance reports, market reception analyses, or updates regarding the commercial performance of ProstaSignal™ that reference intellectual property issues, competitive dynamics with GenomeDx, or patent risk.

Request No. 8 — Documents Concerning This Litigation

All communications and documents in Corinth's possession, custody, or control referencing, discussing, or relating to the instant patent infringement litigation, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (N.D. Cal.), including but not limited to:

(a) any analysis of litigation risk, including assessments of the merits of GenomeDx's infringement claims and Helios's potential defenses;

(b) any analysis of financial exposure, including potential damages, royalty obligations, or the financial impact of an adverse judgment;

(c) any analysis or discussion of indemnification obligations, whether arising under Helios's charter documents, investment agreements, or otherwise;

(d) any analysis of the impact of this litigation on Corinth's investment in Helios, including the impact on valuation, exit strategy, or future fundraising;

(e) any communications between Corinth and Helios management, Helios's board of directors, or Helios's counsel concerning the litigation, litigation strategy, settlement, or mediation; and

(f) any communications between Corinth and its own counsel, advisors, or limited partners concerning this litigation, to the extent not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.

Request No. 9 — Valuation and Financial Analyses Referencing Patent Risk

All internal Corinth valuation models, financial projections, scenario analyses, write-up memoranda, write-down memoranda, mark-to-market analyses, net asset value calculations, and any other financial analyses relating to Corinth's investment in Helios that discuss, model, reference, or account for any of the following:

(a) patent infringement risk or patent litigation contingencies, including risk associated with GenomeDx's patents or the Patents-in-Suit;

(b) potential licensing costs, royalty obligations, or settlement payments arising from GenomeDx's patent rights;

(c) potential injunctive relief, including the risk that Helios could be enjoined from marketing or selling ProstaSignal™;

(d) potential damages exposure in connection with this litigation or any other patent infringement claim by GenomeDx;

(e) insurance coverage for patent infringement claims or intellectual property litigation; or

(f) any adjustment to the valuation of Corinth's investment in Helios attributable to intellectual property risk, litigation risk, or competitive risk posed by GenomeDx.

Request No. 10 — Documents Reflecting Corinth's Knowledge of GenomeDx's Patent Enforcement History

All documents in Corinth's possession, custody, or control reflecting awareness of, knowledge of, or familiarity with GenomeDx's history of patent enforcement, licensing program, or assertion of its patent portfolio, including but not limited to:

(a) any documents referencing or discussing the non-exclusive license agreement dated April 3, 2022 between GenomeDx and Veridian Molecular Labs, Inc., which covered the '271 Patent and the '893 Patent and provided for a 15% running royalty;

(b) any documents referencing or discussing any other license agreement, settlement agreement, or consent judgment involving GenomeDx's patents;

(c) any documents referencing or discussing any patent infringement lawsuit, cease-and-desist letter, or licensing demand made by GenomeDx against any entity;

(d) any documents referencing or discussing GenomeDx's patent prosecution activities, including the issuance of any of the Patents-in-Suit or any continuation, divisional, or related patent application; and

(e) any competitive intelligence reports, news articles, press releases, or industry publications received or reviewed by Corinth that discuss GenomeDx's intellectual property position, patent enforcement activities, or licensing program.

VI. OBJECTIONS AND PRIVILEGE

Corinth may serve objections to this Subpoena in writing on Calderwood & Harkness LLP within fourteen (14) days after service of this Subpoena, or before the date for compliance specified herein, whichever is earlier, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B). Any objections shall be served on Peter Vassiliev at the address, telephone number, and email address set forth in Section I of this Subpoena.

Any documents withheld on the basis of any privilege — including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any common-interest privilege — must be identified in a privilege log that complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e)(2)(A) and the instructions set forth in Section IV.C.3 of this Subpoena. The privilege log must be produced concurrently with the document production, or within such other time period as may be agreed upon by the parties.

Common-Interest Privilege. To the extent Corinth or Helios asserts the common-interest privilege (also referred to as the community-of-interest doctrine or the joint defense privilege) as a basis for withholding documents, GenomeDx notes that the common-interest privilege requires a showing that Corinth and Helios shared a common legal interest — as opposed to a common commercial, financial, or business interest — at the time the communications at issue were made, and that the communications were made in furtherance of that common legal interest. See In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974, 981-82 (9th Cir. 2012). A shared interest in the financial performance or commercial success of a portfolio company does not, without more, establish the common legal interest required to invoke the common-interest privilege. GenomeDx reserves the right to challenge any assertion of the common-interest privilege that is not supported by facts demonstrating a genuine common legal interest between Corinth and Helios.

Stipulated Protective Order. All documents produced by Corinth in response to this Subpoena shall be governed by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Honorable Jessica W. Langston on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. [__]), in Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL. Corinth may avail itself of the confidentiality protections afforded by the Stipulated Protective Order, including the two-tier designation framework established therein, as set forth in Section VIII below.

VII. DUTY TO PRESERVE

Upon receipt of this Subpoena, Corinth is hereby notified of its obligation to preserve all documents and electronically stored information that are responsive to the document requests set forth in Schedule A. Corinth shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that no responsive documents or electronically stored information are destroyed, deleted, altered, overwritten, concealed, or otherwise made unavailable, whether through routine document retention practices, automated deletion protocols, or any other means.

This preservation obligation extends to all documents and electronically stored information in Corinth's possession, custody, or control, including documents maintained on servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile devices (including smartphones and tablets), cloud-based storage services, email systems, messaging platforms, backup tapes, and any other storage medium.

Corinth is reminded that the spoliation of evidence — including the destruction, alteration, or concealment of documents that a party or non-party knows or should know are relevant to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation — may result in sanctions, including adverse inference instructions, monetary sanctions, or other remedial measures, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and the inherent authority of the Court. See also Zubulake v. Ashgrove Trust Bank, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

VIII. APPLICABILITY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

All documents and electronically stored information produced by Corinth in response to this Subpoena shall be subject to and governed by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Honorable Jessica W. Langston on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. [__]) in Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (N.D. Cal.) (the "Protective Order").

Corinth may designate any documents it produces as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" in accordance with the two-tier designation framework established in the Protective Order. Documents designated as "Confidential" shall be subject to the use and disclosure restrictions applicable to Confidential information under the Protective Order. Documents designated as "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" shall be subject to the more restrictive use and disclosure limitations applicable to that tier, including limitations on disclosure to in-house counsel and party employees, as set forth in the Protective Order.

Calderwood & Harkness LLP and its client, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., acknowledge and agree that they will be bound by the terms of the Protective Order with respect to all documents produced by Corinth, and will treat all such documents in strict accordance with the confidentiality restrictions applicable to the designated tier. Any challenge to a confidentiality designation shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protective Order.

IX. RETURN / PROOF OF SERVICE

This section is to be completed upon actual issuance and service of this Subpoena. This section is currently in draft form and contains blank fields to be filled in at the time of service.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I served this Subpoena on the person or entity identified in Section II of this Subpoena as follows:

Date of Service: ________

Person Served: ________

Title/Position of Person Served (if applicable): ________

Entity Served: Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP

Address of Service: ________

Manner of Service:

Personal service

Service by leaving at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein

Service by certified mail, return receipt requested

Other (specify): ________

Fees Tendered: ________

________________________________________

Name of Server (printed): ________ Signature of Server: ________

Date: ________

X. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE BLOCK

I, the undersigned attorney, certify that this Subpoena has been issued on behalf of the Plaintiff, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., in connection with the above-captioned civil action, and that the documents and electronically stored information sought herein are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and are proportional to the needs of the case, taking into account the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. This Subpoena is issued in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and is not intended to impose undue burden or expense on the non-party recipient.

[Space for Clerk's Seal — to be obtained upon issuance from the Court]

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Peter Vassiliev (Cal. Bar No. 314782) Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 555-7800 Facsimile: (415) 555-7801

Email: pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.

Supervising Partner: Catherine Bloom (Cal. Bar No. 198456) Telephone: (415) 555-7812

Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com

Date: ________

INTERNAL COVER MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP INTERNAL USE ONLY

This memorandum is prepared by attorneys at Calderwood & Harkness LLP and is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. It reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of attorneys. This memorandum is not to be disclosed to any person outside of the Calderwood & Harkness LLP litigation team assigned to Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (N.D. Cal.), without the express written authorization of Catherine Bloom.

February 2026

DRAFT — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY — NOT YET ISSUED OR SERVED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
HELIOS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL
Hon. Jessica W. Langston Magistrate Judge David R. Cabrera
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
Issued Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45
I. SUBPOENA IDENTIFICATION AND ISSUANCE INFORMATION
This Subpoena to Produce Documents, Electronically Stored Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action is issued from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in connection with the above-captioned civil action.
This Subpoena has been prepared by:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105
Attorneys for Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.
Contact Attorney: Peter Vassiliev, Lead Associate Telephone: (415) 555-7800
Email: pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com
Supervising Partner: Catherine Bloom, Responsible Partner Telephone: (415) 555-7812
Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com
Date of Preparation: February 2026
DRAFT — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY — NOT YET ISSUED OR SERVED. This document is an internal working draft prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP for the purpose of attorney review and strategic evaluation. It has not been filed with any court, has not been issued by the Clerk of Court, and has not been served upon any party or non-party. This document is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and should not be distributed outside of the Calderwood & Harkness LLP litigation team without the express authorization of Catherine Bloom.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM SUBPOENA IS DIRECTED
This Subpoena is directed to:
Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP 399 Boylston Street, Suite 1100 Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Entity Type: Delaware limited partnership
Managing Director: Priya Chandrasekaran
Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP ("Corinth") is a venture capital fund organized as a Delaware limited partnership with approximately $2.1 billion in assets under management. Corinth is the majority equity holder in Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"), holding approximately 58.7% of Helios's outstanding equity. By virtue of this significant equity position, Corinth and its representatives — including its Managing Director, Priya Chandrasekaran — have maintained substantial involvement in, and access to information regarding, Helios's business strategy, product development, intellectual property portfolio, and commercial activities, including the development and launch of the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier at issue in this litigation.
Corinth is a non-party to this litigation. However, Corinth is believed to possess documents and electronically stored information that are directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including evidence bearing on Helios's pre-launch knowledge of GenomeDx's patent portfolio, Helios's procurement and dissemination of freedom-to-operate analyses, the willfulness of Helios's alleged infringement, and the scope and validity of privilege assertions that Helios has made with respect to documents shared between Helios and its investors.
III. COMMAND TO PRODUCE
YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents and electronically stored information described in the attached Schedule A (Section V of this Subpoena), at the following location:
Place of Production:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105
Alternatively, at Corinth's election, production may be made via secure electronic transfer to counsel for Plaintiff at the electronic production portal maintained by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, to be coordinated with Peter Vassiliev at the contact information set forth above.
Date and Time for Production: The documents and electronically stored information described in Schedule A shall be produced no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Subpoena, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2). The specific compliance date shall be inserted upon issuance and service.
Production of the documents and electronically stored information described herein may be made in lieu of personal attendance at the place of production. If Corinth elects to produce documents by mail or by secure electronic transfer, such production must be received by Calderwood & Harkness LLP no later than the compliance date specified above.
Compliance with the Stipulated Protective Order. The parties to this litigation have entered into a Stipulated Protective Order, which was entered by the Honorable Jessica W. Langston on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. [__]). The Stipulated Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality designation framework, under which documents and information may be designated as either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." All documents produced by Corinth in response to this Subpoena shall be governed by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. Corinth may designate any documents it produces as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" in accordance with the procedures set forth therein. Calderwood & Harkness LLP and its client, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., agree to be bound by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order with respect to all documents produced by Corinth, and will treat all such documents in accordance with the restrictions applicable to the designated confidentiality tier.
IV. DEFINITIONS
A. Defined Terms
For purposes of this Subpoena, including the document requests set forth in Schedule A, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
1.  "Helios" or "HPD" means Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered at 200 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 600, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140, and includes its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as any person or entity acting on its behalf.
2.  "GenomeDx" or "GDT" means Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4750 Torrey Pines Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, and includes its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as any person or entity acting on its behalf.
3.  "Corinth" means Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, a Delaware limited partnership with its principal office at 399 Boylston Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02116, and includes its general partner, managing director, partners, employees, agents, representatives, and any person or entity acting on its behalf.
4.  "ProstaSignal™" means the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier, a 24-gene expression-based prognostic test for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy, which was commercially launched by Helios on or about October 7, 2024, and includes all versions, iterations, prototypes, and developmental precursors of the test, as well as any associated assay, algorithm, software, or platform used in connection with the administration, processing, or reporting of such test.
5.  "Decipher®" means GenomeDx's Decipher® Prostate genomic classifier test, a clinically validated genomic test for prostate cancer prognostication, including all versions and iterations thereof, as well as any associated assay, algorithm, software, or platform used in connection with the administration, processing, or reporting of such test.
6.  "Patents-in-Suit" means the following United States patents asserted by GenomeDx in this litigation:
(a) U.S. Patent No. 10,438,271 (the "'271 Patent"), entitled "Methods and Compositions for Prognostic Assessment of Prostate Cancer," issued on October 8, 2019;
(b) U.S. Patent No. 11,204,893 (the "'893 Patent"), entitled "Genomic Classifiers for Prostate Cancer Prognosis," issued on December 21, 2021; and
(c) U.S. Patent No. 11,891,647 (the "'647 Patent"), entitled "Multi-Gene Expression Panels and Methods for Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer," issued on February 6, 2024.
7.  "Freedom-to-Operate" or "FTO" means any analysis, opinion, assessment, evaluation, memorandum, letter, report, or presentation — whether prepared internally or by outside counsel, patent counsel, technical advisors, or any other third party — addressing, evaluating, or opining on the risk of infringement of third-party intellectual property rights, including but not limited to the Patents-in-Suit, any other GenomeDx patents, or any other patents potentially relevant to ProstaSignal™. The term includes, without limitation, patent clearance opinions, non-infringement opinions, invalidity opinions, right-to-use opinions, patent landscape analyses, and patent risk assessments.
8.  "Document" or "Documents" shall be construed in the broadest sense permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall include all writings, recordings, and electronically stored information of every kind, regardless of the medium on which they are stored, including but not limited to: memoranda, correspondence, letters, emails, text messages (including SMS and Westmark Software), instant messages (including messages transmitted via Meridian Solutions, Northgate Data Systems, Meridian Services Inc., Harborline Technologies, or similar platforms), presentations (including Northgate Services Inc. or Tidewater Data Systems files), spreadsheets (including Excel files), board materials, meeting minutes, notes (whether handwritten or typed), reports, analyses, opinions, evaluations, assessments, calendars, schedules, financial models, term sheets, contracts, agreements, invoices, receipts, photographs, videos, audio recordings, social media posts, website content, databases, metadata, and all drafts, revisions, and non-identical copies of any of the foregoing.
9.  "Communication" or "Communications" shall be construed broadly to encompass any oral, written, or electronic exchange of information between two or more persons or entities, regardless of the medium or manner of transmission, including but not limited to face-to-face conversations, telephone calls, video conferences, voice messages, emails, text messages, instant messages, letters, memoranda, and any other form of transmission of information.
10.  "You" or "Your" refers to Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, including its general partner, managing director, partners (general and limited), employees, agents, representatives, advisors, consultants, and any persons or entities acting on its behalf or at its direction.
11.  "Relating to" or "Concerning" shall be construed broadly to mean referring to, describing, evidencing, constituting, mentioning, reflecting, regarding, pertaining to, connected with, commenting on, responsive to, having any logical connection to, or being in any way legally relevant to the subject matter described.
12.  "Person" means any natural person, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, association, trust, governmental entity, or any other legal entity.
B. Temporal Scope
Unless otherwise specified in a particular document request, the document requests set forth in Schedule A cover the period from January 1, 2019 — the year in which Helios was founded — through the present date (i.e., the date on which this Subpoena is served or, if later, the date on which responsive documents are produced).
C. Instructions
The following instructions apply to all document requests set forth in Schedule A:
1.  Organization of Production. Documents shall be produced either (a) as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, maintaining the file structure, folder organization, and custodial associations in which they are maintained, or (b) organized and labeled to correspond with the categories and request numbers set forth in Schedule A.
2.  Format of Production — Electronically Stored Information. Electronically stored information ("ESI") shall be produced in one of the following formats, at Corinth's election: (a) native file format, with all associated metadata intact and preserved; or (b) single-page TIFF images (300 DPI, Group IV compression) accompanied by extracted text files (in .txt format, one per document) and a load file (in concordance .dat format or relativity-compatible format) containing all available metadata fields, including but not limited to custodian, author, date created, date modified, date sent, date received, sender, recipient(s), CC, BCC, subject line, file name, file path, file extension, and file size. The format of production shall be consistent with the specifications set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order entered December 18, 2025, and any ESI protocol agreed to by the parties.
3.  Privilege Log. To the extent that Corinth withholds any document or communication on the basis of any privilege (including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any common-interest privilege), Corinth shall provide a privilege log that conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e)(2)(A). The privilege log shall identify each withheld document with sufficient specificity to enable the requesting party to assess the validity of the privilege claim, and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each withheld document:
(a) the date of the document or communication;
(b) the author or sender of the document or communication;
(c) all recipients (including CC and BCC recipients) of the document or communication;
(d) a description of the general subject matter of the document or communication, stated with sufficient specificity to permit assessment of the privilege claim without revealing privileged content;
(e) the type of document (e.g., email, memorandum, presentation, instant message);
(f) the specific privilege or protection asserted (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege); and
(g) the factual basis for each asserted privilege or protection.
4.  Meet and Confer. Before filing any motion to quash or modify this Subpoena, Corinth is requested to meet and confer in good faith with counsel for GenomeDx regarding any objections, concerns, or issues relating to the scope, burden, or terms of this Subpoena. Counsel for GenomeDx is willing to discuss reasonable modifications to the scope or timing of production to minimize any undue burden on Corinth as a non-party, consistent with GenomeDx's legitimate discovery needs.
5.  Continuing Obligation. If, after the date of initial production, Corinth identifies or comes into possession of additional documents responsive to this Subpoena that were not included in the initial production, Corinth shall promptly supplement its production to include such documents.
V. SCHEDULE A: DOCUMENTS AND CATEGORIES REQUESTED
Request No. 1 — Investment Memoranda Relating to Helios
All investment memoranda, investment committee presentations, deal screening reports, deal summaries, partnership meeting materials, and funding approval documents prepared by or for Corinth in connection with any investment in Helios, including but not limited to Corinth's Series A investment in Helios and any subsequent funding rounds (including Series B, Series C, bridge financings, or any other equity or debt investments), to the extent such documents discuss, reference, analyze, evaluate, or mention any of the following:
(a) GenomeDx, GenomeDx's business, or GenomeDx's products or services;
(b) GenomeDx's patent portfolio, including any of the Patents-in-Suit (the '271 Patent, the '893 Patent, and/or the '647 Patent);
(c) the Decipher® test or any competitive comparison between the Decipher® test and ProstaSignal™;
(d) any intellectual property risks, patent infringement risks, or freedom-to-operate concerns associated with Helios's ProstaSignal™ product or any other Helios product; or
(e) the competitive landscape for genomic prognostic tests in prostate cancer, to the extent such analysis references GenomeDx or the Decipher® test.
Request No. 2 — Due Diligence Reports and Analyses
All due diligence reports, memoranda, summaries, analyses, checklists, and work papers prepared by or on behalf of Corinth relating to the evaluation of Helios as a prospective or existing portfolio company, including but not limited to:
(a) intellectual property due diligence reports, including any assessments of Helios's owned and licensed intellectual property;
(b) freedom-to-operate analyses or summaries thereof, whether prepared by Corinth's internal personnel, Helios's counsel, Corinth's outside counsel, or any other third party;
(c) patent landscape analyses addressing the field of genomic prognostic testing for prostate cancer or any related technology area;
(d) competitive assessments, market analyses, or competitive intelligence reports referencing GenomeDx, the Decipher® test, or any other competing genomic classifier;
(e) any third-party opinions, reports, or analyses commissioned by Corinth or provided to Corinth by Helios or Helios's counsel concerning Helios's intellectual property position, freedom to operate, or risk of infringement of third-party patents; and
(f) any technical assessments or scientific diligence reports evaluating the ProstaSignal™ assay, algorithm, or gene panel in relation to prior art, published literature, or competing technologies, to the extent such assessments reference GenomeDx, GenomeDx's patents, or the Decipher® test.
Request No. 3 — Board Observation Notes and Board Materials
All notes, memoranda, reports, summaries, and materials prepared by or for any Corinth partner, employee, or representative in connection with attendance at, observation of, or participation in any meeting of the Helios board of directors, any committee of the Helios board of directors, or any advisory board or similar governance body of Helios, including but not limited to:
(a) board observation notes prepared by any Corinth representative before, during, or after any Helios board meeting;
(b) board packages, board decks, and presentation materials distributed to Corinth in advance of, during, or following any Helios board meeting;
(c) board minutes or draft board minutes received by Corinth from Helios;
(d) any internal Corinth summaries, debriefs, memoranda, or reports prepared following any Helios board meeting;
to the extent that such documents discuss, reference, or mention any of the following topics:
(i) GenomeDx, GenomeDx's business, or GenomeDx's products or services;
(ii) GenomeDx's patents, including any of the Patents-in-Suit;
(iii) the Decipher® test or any competitive analysis involving the Decipher® test;
(iv) any freedom-to-operate analysis, patent clearance opinion, or intellectual property risk assessment relating to ProstaSignal™;
(v) patent infringement risk, patent litigation risk, or potential patent enforcement actions by GenomeDx or any other third party; or
(vi) the development, clinical validation, regulatory strategy, or commercial launch of ProstaSignal™, to the extent such discussions address intellectual property considerations.
Request No. 4 — Communications Concerning GenomeDx's Patent Portfolio
All communications (including emails, letters, instant messages, text messages, meeting notes, calendar invitations, and any other form of written or electronic communication) between or among Corinth personnel (including, without limitation, Priya Chandrasekaran and any other Corinth partner, associate, analyst, or employee) and any officer, director, employee, consultant, or agent of Helios (including, without limitation, Dr. Nathan Ashford, Dr. Elaine Kossack, Sara Whitmore, and Derek Mallinson) that discuss, reference, mention, or relate to any of the following:
(a) GenomeDx's patent portfolio, including any specific patents owned by or licensed to GenomeDx;
(b) any of the Patents-in-Suit (the '271 Patent, the '893 Patent, and/or the '647 Patent);
(c) any freedom-to-operate analysis conducted by or for Helios with respect to ProstaSignal™ or any other Helios product;
(d) any assessment of the risk that ProstaSignal™ or any component thereof might infringe one or more patents held by GenomeDx; or
(e) any discussions regarding the possibility of obtaining a license from GenomeDx or otherwise resolving any intellectual property issues with GenomeDx.
Request No. 5 — Communications Concerning Helios's FTO Analysis for ProstaSignal™
All communications between or among Corinth personnel (including, without limitation, Priya Chandrasekaran) and any third party — including, without limitation, outside counsel such as Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, any other law firm, any patent counsel, any patent agent, any scientific or technical advisor, and any other consultant or advisor — concerning, discussing, referencing, or relating to:
(a) any freedom-to-operate analysis, patent clearance opinion, or infringement risk assessment relating to the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier;
(b) any analysis of any of the Patents-in-Suit (the '271 Patent, the '893 Patent, and/or the '647 Patent) in connection with ProstaSignal™;
(c) any analysis of any other GenomeDx patents in connection with ProstaSignal™ or any other Helios product;
(d) any opinion or assessment of the validity or enforceability of any of the Patents-in-Suit or any other GenomeDx patents; or
(e) any recommendation or strategy concerning the mitigation of patent infringement risk with respect to ProstaSignal™, including design-around strategies, licensing negotiations, or inter partes review petitions.
Note regarding privilege: This Request is not intended to compel the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege to the extent that Corinth was a direct client of the attorney who rendered the advice at issue. However, this Request does seek documents that were shared by Helios or Helios's counsel with Corinth in Corinth's capacity as an investor, shareholder, or board observer, which may fall outside the scope of Helios's attorney-client privilege or may constitute a waiver of any such privilege. To the extent Corinth asserts any privilege or common-interest protection over responsive documents, Corinth is directed to identify such documents on a privilege log in accordance with the instructions set forth in Section IV.C.3 above.
Request No. 6 — Portfolio Company Monitoring Reports
All periodic portfolio company monitoring reports, quarterly investment reviews, annual investment reviews, fund performance reports, limited partner advisory committee ("LPAC") materials, and any other internal Corinth fund reports, updates, or memoranda that discuss, reference, or address Helios's competitive position, market opportunity, product pipeline, regulatory status, or intellectual property matters, to the extent such documents reference, mention, or relate to:
(a) GenomeDx or the Decipher® test;
(b) GenomeDx's patents, including any of the Patents-in-Suit;
(c) any infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability issues relating to ProstaSignal™ or any Helios product;
(d) any competitive threat posed by GenomeDx to Helios; or
(e) any risk factor, contingency, or uncertainty associated with Helios's intellectual property position.
Request No. 7 — Documents Concerning ProstaSignal™ Commercial Launch
All documents in Corinth's possession, custody, or control concerning, relating to, or reflecting the commercial launch of ProstaSignal™ on or about October 7, 2024, including but not limited to:
(a) marketing plans, go-to-market strategies, and launch timelines;
(b) launch readiness assessments and checklists;
(c) revenue projections, sales forecasts, and financial models associated with the ProstaSignal™ launch;
(d) competitive positioning analyses comparing ProstaSignal™ to competing products, including the Decipher® test;
(e) any assessment, analysis, or discussion of risks relating to GenomeDx's patent rights, potential patent infringement claims, or potential enforcement actions by GenomeDx;
(f) any communications between Corinth and Helios concerning the timing, strategy, or readiness of the ProstaSignal™ commercial launch; and
(g) any post-launch performance reports, market reception analyses, or updates regarding the commercial performance of ProstaSignal™ that reference intellectual property issues, competitive dynamics with GenomeDx, or patent risk.
Request No. 8 — Documents Concerning This Litigation
All communications and documents in Corinth's possession, custody, or control referencing, discussing, or relating to the instant patent infringement litigation, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (N.D. Cal.), including but not limited to:
(a) any analysis of litigation risk, including assessments of the merits of GenomeDx's infringement claims and Helios's potential defenses;
(b) any analysis of financial exposure, including potential damages, royalty obligations, or the financial impact of an adverse judgment;
(c) any analysis or discussion of indemnification obligations, whether arising under Helios's charter documents, investment agreements, or otherwise;
(d) any analysis of the impact of this litigation on Corinth's investment in Helios, including the impact on valuation, exit strategy, or future fundraising;
(e) any communications between Corinth and Helios management, Helios's board of directors, or Helios's counsel concerning the litigation, litigation strategy, settlement, or mediation; and
(f) any communications between Corinth and its own counsel, advisors, or limited partners concerning this litigation, to the extent not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.
Request No. 9 — Valuation and Financial Analyses Referencing Patent Risk
All internal Corinth valuation models, financial projections, scenario analyses, write-up memoranda, write-down memoranda, mark-to-market analyses, net asset value calculations, and any other financial analyses relating to Corinth's investment in Helios that discuss, model, reference, or account for any of the following:
(a) patent infringement risk or patent litigation contingencies, including risk associated with GenomeDx's patents or the Patents-in-Suit;
(b) potential licensing costs, royalty obligations, or settlement payments arising from GenomeDx's patent rights;
(c) potential injunctive relief, including the risk that Helios could be enjoined from marketing or selling ProstaSignal™;
(d) potential damages exposure in connection with this litigation or any other patent infringement claim by GenomeDx;
(e) insurance coverage for patent infringement claims or intellectual property litigation; or
(f) any adjustment to the valuation of Corinth's investment in Helios attributable to intellectual property risk, litigation risk, or competitive risk posed by GenomeDx.
Request No. 10 — Documents Reflecting Corinth's Knowledge of GenomeDx's Patent Enforcement History
All documents in Corinth's possession, custody, or control reflecting awareness of, knowledge of, or familiarity with GenomeDx's history of patent enforcement, licensing program, or assertion of its patent portfolio, including but not limited to:
(a) any documents referencing or discussing the non-exclusive license agreement dated April 3, 2022 between GenomeDx and Veridian Molecular Labs, Inc., which covered the '271 Patent and the '893 Patent and provided for a 15% running royalty;
(b) any documents referencing or discussing any other license agreement, settlement agreement, or consent judgment involving GenomeDx's patents;
(c) any documents referencing or discussing any patent infringement lawsuit, cease-and-desist letter, or licensing demand made by GenomeDx against any entity;
(d) any documents referencing or discussing GenomeDx's patent prosecution activities, including the issuance of any of the Patents-in-Suit or any continuation, divisional, or related patent application; and
(e) any competitive intelligence reports, news articles, press releases, or industry publications received or reviewed by Corinth that discuss GenomeDx's intellectual property position, patent enforcement activities, or licensing program.
VI. OBJECTIONS AND PRIVILEGE
Corinth may serve objections to this Subpoena in writing on Calderwood & Harkness LLP within fourteen (14) days after service of this Subpoena, or before the date for compliance specified herein, whichever is earlier, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B). Any objections shall be served on Peter Vassiliev at the address, telephone number, and email address set forth in Section I of this Subpoena.
Any documents withheld on the basis of any privilege — including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any common-interest privilege — must be identified in a privilege log that complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e)(2)(A) and the instructions set forth in Section IV.C.3 of this Subpoena. The privilege log must be produced concurrently with the document production, or within such other time period as may be agreed upon by the parties.
Common-Interest Privilege. To the extent Corinth or Helios asserts the common-interest privilege (also referred to as the community-of-interest doctrine or the joint defense privilege) as a basis for withholding documents, GenomeDx notes that the common-interest privilege requires a showing that Corinth and Helios shared a common legal interest — as opposed to a common commercial, financial, or business interest — at the time the communications at issue were made, and that the communications were made in furtherance of that common legal interest. See In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974, 981-82 (9th Cir. 2012). A shared interest in the financial performance or commercial success of a portfolio company does not, without more, establish the common legal interest required to invoke the common-interest privilege. GenomeDx reserves the right to challenge any assertion of the common-interest privilege that is not supported by facts demonstrating a genuine common legal interest between Corinth and Helios.
Stipulated Protective Order. All documents produced by Corinth in response to this Subpoena shall be governed by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Honorable Jessica W. Langston on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. [__]), in Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL. Corinth may avail itself of the confidentiality protections afforded by the Stipulated Protective Order, including the two-tier designation framework established therein, as set forth in Section VIII below.
VII. DUTY TO PRESERVE
Upon receipt of this Subpoena, Corinth is hereby notified of its obligation to preserve all documents and electronically stored information that are responsive to the document requests set forth in Schedule A. Corinth shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that no responsive documents or electronically stored information are destroyed, deleted, altered, overwritten, concealed, or otherwise made unavailable, whether through routine document retention practices, automated deletion protocols, or any other means.
This preservation obligation extends to all documents and electronically stored information in Corinth's possession, custody, or control, including documents maintained on servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile devices (including smartphones and tablets), cloud-based storage services, email systems, messaging platforms, backup tapes, and any other storage medium.
Corinth is reminded that the spoliation of evidence — including the destruction, alteration, or concealment of documents that a party or non-party knows or should know are relevant to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation — may result in sanctions, including adverse inference instructions, monetary sanctions, or other remedial measures, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and the inherent authority of the Court. See also Zubulake v. Ashgrove Trust Bank, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
VIII. APPLICABILITY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
All documents and electronically stored information produced by Corinth in response to this Subpoena shall be subject to and governed by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Honorable Jessica W. Langston on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. [__]) in Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (N.D. Cal.) (the "Protective Order").
Corinth may designate any documents it produces as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" in accordance with the two-tier designation framework established in the Protective Order. Documents designated as "Confidential" shall be subject to the use and disclosure restrictions applicable to Confidential information under the Protective Order. Documents designated as "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" shall be subject to the more restrictive use and disclosure limitations applicable to that tier, including limitations on disclosure to in-house counsel and party employees, as set forth in the Protective Order.
Calderwood & Harkness LLP and its client, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., acknowledge and agree that they will be bound by the terms of the Protective Order with respect to all documents produced by Corinth, and will treat all such documents in strict accordance with the confidentiality restrictions applicable to the designated tier. Any challenge to a confidentiality designation shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protective Order.
IX. RETURN / PROOF OF SERVICE
This section is to be completed upon actual issuance and service of this Subpoena. This section is currently in draft form and contains blank fields to be filled in at the time of service.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I served this Subpoena on the person or entity identified in Section II of this Subpoena as follows:
Date of Service: ________
Person Served: ________
Title/Position of Person Served (if applicable): ________
Entity Served: Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP
Address of Service: ________
Manner of Service:
Personal service
Service by leaving at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein
Service by certified mail, return receipt requested
Other (specify): ________
Fees Tendered: ________
________________________________________
Name of Server (printed): ________ Signature of Server: ________
Date: ________
X. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE BLOCK
I, the undersigned attorney, certify that this Subpoena has been issued on behalf of the Plaintiff, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., in connection with the above-captioned civil action, and that the documents and electronically stored information sought herein are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and are proportional to the needs of the case, taking into account the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. This Subpoena is issued in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and is not intended to impose undue burden or expense on the non-party recipient.
[Space for Clerk's Seal — to be obtained upon issuance from the Court]
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Peter Vassiliev (Cal. Bar No. 314782) Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 555-7800 Facsimile: (415) 555-7801
Email: pvassiliev@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.
Supervising Partner: Catherine Bloom (Cal. Bar No. 198456) Telephone: (415) 555-7812
Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com
Date: ________
INTERNAL COVER MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT FOR CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP INTERNAL USE ONLY
This memorandum is prepared by attorneys at Calderwood & Harkness LLP and is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. It reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of attorneys. This memorandum is not to be disclosed to any person outside of the Calderwood & Harkness LLP litigation team assigned to Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (N.D. Cal.), without the express written authorization of Catherine Bloom.
February 2026
TO: GenomeDx Litigation Team — Calderwood & Harkness LLP FROM: Peter Vassiliev RE: Draft Third-Party Subpoena Duces Tecum to Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP — Strategic Context and Service Considerations DATE: February 2026
1. Purpose and Strategic Context
The attached draft subpoena duces tecum is directed to Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP ("Corinth"), the majority equity holder in Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"). Corinth holds approximately 58.7% of Helios's outstanding equity and is believed to have exercised significant influence over Helios's strategic decisions, including decisions relating to the development and commercial launch of the ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier.
This subpoena is a critical component of GenomeDx's discovery strategy, designed to accomplish the following objectives:
a. Establish Helios's Pre-Launch Knowledge of GenomeDx's Patent Portfolio. Documents held by Corinth — particularly investment memoranda, due diligence reports, and board observation notes — may establish that Helios and its investors were aware of GenomeDx's patent portfolio, including the Patents-in-Suit, well before the October 7, 2024 commercial launch of ProstaSignal™. This evidence is directly relevant to GenomeDx's claim that Helios's infringement was willful, which would entitle GenomeDx to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. If Corinth's investment memoranda or due diligence materials reference the '271 Patent (issued October 2019) or the '893 Patent (issued December 2021), this would demonstrate that Helios and its investors were on notice of GenomeDx's intellectual property rights at an early stage — potentially before ProstaSignal™ was even in development.
b. Obtain Evidence of Pre-Suit FTO Analysis. GenomeDx has propounded interrogatories and document requests to Helios seeking all freedom-to-operate analyses and patent clearance opinions obtained by Helios in connection with ProstaSignal™. Helios has asserted the attorney-client privilege over 34 documents identified in its privilege log. However, if Helios shared the substance or conclusions of its FTO analysis with Corinth — in Corinth's capacity as an investor rather than as a co-client of the advising attorney — Helios may have waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to those communications. Documents obtained from Corinth could reveal whether Helios shared privileged FTO materials with investor personnel who did not share a common legal interest with Helios, thereby undermining Helios's privilege assertions.
c. Support GenomeDx's Damages Case. Corinth's internal valuation models, financial projections, and portfolio monitoring reports may contain assessments of the ProstaSignal™ market opportunity, revenue projections, and competitive positioning that are relevant to the calculation of damages — including reasonable royalty damages under the hypothetical negotiation framework of Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). These materials may also reflect Corinth's assessment of the financial impact of potential licensing costs or litigation contingencies, which could serve as evidence of the value that a willing licensee would assign to the right to use the patented technology.
d. Challenge Helios's Privilege Assertions in the Pending Motion to Compel. As discussed further below in Section 3, GenomeDx filed a motion to compel on January 30, 2026, challenging Helios's assertion of privilege over 34 documents. Documents obtained from Corinth could provide direct evidence that Helios disseminated attorney-client privileged materials to non-attorney investor personnel outside of any legitimate common-interest arrangement, thereby effecting a waiver of privilege. This would significantly strengthen GenomeDx's position on the motion to compel and could result in the production of highly relevant FTO opinions and patent risk assessments.
Corinth's Managing Director, Priya Chandrasekaran, is believed to have held board observation rights at Helios and to have had regular access to investment committee materials, board packages, and strategic updates from Helios management. As such, Corinth is likely in possession of a substantial volume of documents that are responsive to the attached subpoena.
2. Service Considerations
Several procedural and strategic issues must be addressed before this subpoena is finalized and served:
a. Compliance with Rule 45(a)(2) — Issuing Court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2), a subpoena must be issued from the court where the action is pending. The subpoena may command production at a place within 100 miles of where the person served resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, or at the place where the person served was served with the subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A).
Corinth is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Our San Francisco office is well beyond 100 miles from Corinth's Boston headquarters. Accordingly, we have two principal options:
(i) Issue from the Northern District of California and command production at a location within 100 miles of where Corinth is served. If we serve Corinth in Boston, we could command production at a location within 100 miles of Boston — for example, at a document review facility in Boston. However, our preference is to receive production at our San Francisco office or via secure electronic transfer. Under the 2013 amendments to Rule 45, production of documents may be commanded at the place where the action is pending if the subpoena is issued from that court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) advisory committee's note (2013 amendment). In practice, courts have permitted electronic production to obviate geographic restrictions. We should confirm that Corinth would agree to electronic production, which would render the 100-mile issue moot.
(ii) Negotiate a voluntary production agreement. Before resorting to formal subpoena practice, we should consider reaching out to Corinth's counsel (once identified) to negotiate a voluntary production agreement. This would avoid the expense and potential friction of contested subpoena practice, and would allow us to tailor the scope and format of production cooperatively. If Corinth is represented by counsel in connection with this litigation, we should contact that counsel promptly. If not, we should send a courtesy letter to Priya Chandrasekaran or Corinth's general counsel introducing the litigation and requesting a voluntary conference.
b. Anticipated Objections. If Corinth retains counsel to object or move to quash, we should anticipate the following arguments:
(i) Undue burden on a non-party. Corinth will likely argue that the scope of the subpoena is overbroad and imposes an undue burden on a non-party that is not involved in the underlying litigation. We should be prepared to demonstrate that the requests are narrowly tailored to documents relevant to GenomeDx's claims and defenses, and that we have limited the requests to documents that reference GenomeDx, GenomeDx's patents, or the competitive dynamics at issue in this case.
(ii) Relevance. Corinth may argue that its internal investment analyses and fund reports are not relevant to the patent infringement claims at issue. We should be prepared to explain the relevance of these materials to willfulness, damages, and the privilege waiver issue.
(iii) Common-interest privilege. Corinth and Helios may jointly assert the common-interest privilege over communications between them relating to patent risk and FTO analysis. We should be prepared to argue that the common-interest privilege requires a showing of a shared legal interest — not merely a shared commercial interest in Helios's success — and that Corinth's interest as an equity investor does not, without more, establish a common legal interest. See In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2012).
(iv) Confidentiality of proprietary fund information. Corinth may object to the production of internal fund reports and valuation models on the grounds that they contain commercially sensitive information about Corinth's investment strategy, fund performance, and limited partner relationships. The Stipulated Protective Order should adequately address these concerns, and we should be prepared to agree to the "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation for Corinth's most sensitive materials.
3. Coordination with Pending discovery Motions
On January 30, 2026, GenomeDx filed a motion to compel (Dkt. No. [__]) before Magistrate Judge Cabrera, challenging Helios's assertion of privilege over 34 documents identified in Helios's privilege log. These 34 documents include internal Helios memoranda, emails between Helios executives and outside patent counsel at Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, and several documents that appear, based on the privilege log descriptions, to have been shared with Helios's investors — including Corinth.
Documents obtained from Corinth could be critically important to the resolution of this motion in several respects:
(a) If Corinth produces copies of documents that Helios has withheld on privilege grounds, this would constitute strong evidence that Helios voluntarily disclosed privileged materials to a third party, potentially waiving the attorney-client privilege. Under the Ninth Circuit's framework, voluntary disclosure to a third party who does not share a common legal interest with the privilege holder effects a waiver of the privilege as to the disclosed communication. See United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 611-12 (9th Cir. 2009).
(b) Even if the documents themselves are not identical to those withheld by Helios, communications between Corinth and Helios discussing the substance or conclusions of FTO analyses or patent risk assessments could demonstrate that Helios disseminated privileged information beyond the scope of the privilege, thereby supporting GenomeDx's argument that the privilege has been waived.
(c) Documents showing the scope and nature of information shared between Helios and Corinth could also inform the Court's analysis of whether a valid common-interest arrangement existed between Helios and Corinth, which is a predicate to the common-interest privilege defense that Helios is expected to assert.
4. Estimated Timeline
The following timeline is proposed for the finalization, service, and compliance with this subpoena:
Key Timing Consideration: The current fact discovery close is March 6, 2026. If we serve this subpoena in February 2026, the 30-day compliance date would likely fall in March 2026 — at or around the discovery cutoff. While Rule 45 subpoenas to non-parties are not strictly subject to party discovery deadlines, courts may view a post-discovery-close production unfavorably if the opposing party has not had the opportunity to review and respond to the produced materials within the discovery period. Accordingly, we should consider whether to (a) seek a stipulated extension of the fact discovery cutoff, (b) serve the subpoena as soon as possible to maximize the likelihood that compliance will occur before the cutoff, or (c) defer service until after the motion to compel is resolved and then address any timing issues with the Court. Catherine Bloom's guidance on this strategic question is requested.
End of Internal Cover Memorandum — For Calderwood & Harkness LLP Internal Use Only
Milestone | Target Date | Notes
Draft finalized and reviewed by Catherine Bloom | February 2026 | Current draft attached; awaiting Catherine's review and approval
Decision on service timing | Pending strategic evaluation | Service may be timed to follow Magistrate Judge Cabrera's ruling on the motion to compel, or may be served earlier if strategically advantageous
Service of subpoena | TBD | To be served after issuance from the court and, if applicable, after outreach to Corinth's counsel regarding voluntary production
Deadline for objections (14 days post-service) | TBD + 14 days | Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)
Compliance date (30 days post-service) | TBD + 30 days | Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)
Fact discovery close | March 6, 2026 | If the subpoena is served after mid-January 2026, the 30-day compliance date may fall after the fact discovery close. Rule 45 subpoenas are not technically bound by party discovery deadlines, but practical and equitable considerations apply. We may need to seek an extension of the fact discovery deadline, or arrange for post-discovery-close production under Rule 45 with the Court's permission

DRAFT — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY — NOT YET ISSUED OR SERVED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. SUBPOENA IDENTIFICATION AND ISSUANCE INFORMATION

II. IDENTIFICATION OF PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM SUBPOENA IS DIRECTED

III. COMMAND TO PRODUCE

IV. DEFINITIONS

V. SCHEDULE A: DOCUMENTS AND CATEGORIES REQUESTED

VI. OBJECTIONS AND PRIVILEGE

VII. DUTY TO PRESERVE

VIII. APPLICABILITY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

IX. RETURN / PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

X. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE BLOCK

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts