1013-00005 · Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc · Experts

expert-engagement-letter-tremaine-draft.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

24 / 35 ← → ✕

DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law

555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 793-4000 Facsimile: (415) 793-4001 www.calderwoodharkness.com

February __, 2026

Dr. Louise Tremaine Managing Director Ashworth Economics Group LLC 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60606

Re: Retention as Damages Expert — *Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc.*, Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Dear Dr. Tremaine:

1. Introduction and Purpose of Engagement

This letter agreement (the "Engagement Letter") sets forth the terms and conditions under which you, Dr. Louise Tremaine, and your firm, Ashworth Economics Group LLC ("Ashworth" or the "Expert Firm"), are retained as plaintiff's damages expert on behalf of Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. ("GenomeDx" or "GDT") in the above-referenced patent infringement action.

Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("Calderwood & Harkness" or the "Firm") represents GenomeDx, a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4750 Torrey Pines Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, in the matter of Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Litigation"). GenomeDx is a molecular diagnostics company specializing in the development and commercialization of genomic tests for urologic oncology. Its principal commercial product is the Decipher® Prostate genomic classifier test, a 22-gene expression-based prognostic test for prostate cancer that is used by urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists to guide post-surgical treatment decisions. GenomeDx reported fiscal year 2024 revenue of approximately $387.6 million. GenomeDx is majority-owned (approximately 62.4%) by Pinnacle Biosciences Capital, LP, a life sciences-focused private equity fund.

The Litigation is assigned to the Honorable Jessica W. Langston, United States District Judge. The Honorable David R. Cabrera, United States Magistrate Judge, is assigned for purposes of resolving discovery disputes and other pretrial matters as referred by the Court. In this action, GenomeDx asserts three United States patents against the defendant, Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"), relating to Helios's ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier product, which was commercially launched on October 7, 2024. Each of the asserted patents, the accused product, and the procedural posture of the Litigation are described in further detail in Section 2 of this Engagement Letter.

The engagement team at Calderwood & Harkness for this matter consists of Catherine Bloom (Responsible Partner), Alan Ngo (Billing Partner), Peter Vassiliev (Lead Associate), and Wendy Schultz (Working Associate). Catherine Bloom will serve as your primary contact at the Firm for substantive matters relating to this engagement, and Alan Ngo will serve as your primary contact for billing and administrative matters.

This Engagement Letter sets forth the scope of your retention, the materials and information to be provided to you, the compensation terms, confidentiality obligations, and other terms governing this engagement. We ask that you review this letter carefully. Upon execution by both parties, this letter will constitute the binding agreement between Calderwood & Harkness LLP (on behalf of GenomeDx) and Ashworth Economics Group LLC regarding the engagement described herein.

2. Background of the Litigation

To provide context for the scope of your anticipated analysis and opinions, we summarize below the key facts concerning the patents-in-suit, the accused product, the defendant, and the procedural posture of the Litigation. Additional factual background, documentary evidence, and financial data will be furnished to you as described in Section 4 of this Engagement Letter.

2.1 Patents-in-Suit. GenomeDx asserts three United States patents against Helios in this action (collectively, the "Patents-in-Suit"):

(a) U.S. Patent No. 10,438,271 (the "'271 Patent"). Entitled "Methods for Predicting Prostate Cancer Outcomes Using Multi-Gene Expression Classifiers," the '271 Patent was filed on June 14, 2016, and issued on October 8, 2019. The '271 Patent expires on June 14, 2036. GenomeDx asserts Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 18 of the '271 Patent against Helios. The '271 Patent generally claims methods of using a multi-gene expression classifier to predict clinical outcomes, including the probability of metastatic progression, in prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy. The claimed methods involve measuring expression levels of a specified panel of genes in a tissue sample, applying a classification algorithm to the measured expression levels, and generating a prognostic score used to stratify patients into risk categories.

(b) U.S. Patent No. 11,204,893 (the "'893 Patent"). Entitled "Genomic Classifier Systems and Methods for Post-Surgical Cancer Prognosis," the '893 Patent was filed on March 22, 2019, as a continuation of the '271 Patent family, and issued on December 21, 2021. The '893 Patent expires on June 14, 2036 (co-terminal with the '271 Patent by virtue of its continuation relationship). GenomeDx asserts Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 20 of the '893 Patent against Helios. The '893 Patent claims systems and methods incorporating a genomic classifier with computer-implemented data processing components for generating post-surgical prognostic assessments in cancer patients.

(c) U.S. Patent No. 11,891,647 (the "'647 Patent"). Entitled "Improved Methods for Genomic Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer Using Combined Biomarker and Clinical Variable Models," the '647 Patent was filed on September 9, 2021, and issued on February 6, 2024. The '647 Patent expires on September 9, 2041. GenomeDx asserts Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, and 15 of the '647 Patent against Helios. The '647 Patent claims methods for genomic risk stratification that combine gene expression biomarker data with clinical variables — such as Gleason grade group and pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels — to generate a combined prognostic model with improved predictive accuracy compared to genomic data or clinical variables alone.

Collectively, the Patents-in-Suit cover foundational aspects of multi-gene expression-based prognostic testing for prostate cancer, including the underlying methods of gene expression measurement and classification, the systems used to implement such methods, and the combination of genomic and clinical data for enhanced prognostic accuracy. GenomeDx holds a substantial patent portfolio beyond the Patents-in-Suit, comprising forty-seven (47) issued United States patents, twelve (12) pending United States patent applications, and nineteen (19) international family members. The breadth and depth of GenomeDx's patent portfolio is relevant to your Georgia-Pacific factor analysis, as discussed below.

2.2 Accused Product

The accused product in this Litigation is Helios's ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier (the "Accused Product" or "ProstaSignal™"). ProstaSignal™ is a 24-gene expression-based prognostic test for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Of the twenty-four genes included in the ProstaSignal™ panel, nineteen (19) overlap directly with the genes used in GenomeDx's patented and commercially marketed Decipher® test, which employs a 22-gene panel. This substantial overlap in gene content is a key element of GenomeDx's infringement theory and is also relevant to your assessment of the competitive relationship between the two products.

ProstaSignal™ uses a gradient-boosted decision tree classifier algorithm to analyze the expression data from its 24-gene panel, generating a numerical score designated as the "ProstaScore," which ranges from 0 to 100. Based on the ProstaScore, patients are classified into three risk categories: Low, Intermediate, or High risk of adverse outcomes (including metastatic progression) following radical prostatectomy. In addition to the genomic ProstaScore, ProstaSignal™ combines the ProstaScore with clinical variables, specifically Gleason grade group and pre-operative PSA, to produce an integrated risk assessment. This combination of genomic and clinical variables is directly relevant to GenomeDx's infringement allegations under the '647 Patent.

ProstaSignal™ was commercially launched on October 7, 2024, and has been marketed to urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists as an alternative to GenomeDx's Decipher® test. As discussed further below, Helios has performed approximately 8,400 ProstaSignal™ tests during the period from its commercial launch through approximately March 2025, generating revenue of approximately $32,088,000 at an average reimbursement of $3,820 per test. Both GenomeDx's Decipher® test and Helios's ProstaSignal™ are reimbursed through the Medicare MolDX program, with GenomeDx's Decipher® test assigned Multianalyte Assays with Algorithmic Analyses (MAAA) code 0047M and Helios's ProstaSignal™ assigned MAAA code 0239M.

2.3 Defendant. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 200 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 600, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140. Helios operates a CLIA-certified clinical laboratory located at 9830 Mesa Rim Road, Suite 140, San Diego, California 92121, where ProstaSignal™ tests are processed. Helios was founded in 2019 and is led by Dr. Nathan Ashford (Chief Executive Officer) and Dr. Elaine Kossack (Chief Scientific Officer). Helios is majority-owned (approximately 58.7%) by Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, a healthcare and life sciences venture capital fund. For fiscal year 2024, Helios reported total revenue of approximately $71.2 million and employed approximately 215 individuals.

Helios is represented in this Litigation by the law firm of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, with Marcus Pellegrini serving as lead litigation partner.

2.4 Procedural Posture

The current procedural posture of the Litigation is as follows:

• GenomeDx filed its Complaint on March 28, 2025, asserting claims of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 with respect to each of the three Patents-in-Suit.

• Helios filed its Answer and Counterclaims on May 12, 2025, asserting defenses of non-infringement, invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103, and unenforceability. Helios's counterclaims seek declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit.

• On January 13, 2026, the Court denied Helios's Motion to Dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-eligible subject matter), holding that GenomeDx's asserted claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter and are not abstract ideas under the Alice framework.

• The case is currently in active fact discovery. The fact discovery close deadline is March 6, 2026.

• Expert reports are due May 15, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports are due July 10, 2026.

• A Markman claim construction hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2026.

• Trial is currently set for February 2027.

• A Stipulated Protective Order was entered by the Court on December 18, 2025. The Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality designation system: "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." Your obligations under the Protective Order are addressed in Section 6 of this Engagement Letter.

3. Scope of Engagement

You are being retained to serve as plaintiff's damages expert in this Litigation. The scope of your engagement, as currently anticipated, encompasses the following categories of analysis and opinion. We reserve the right to modify or expand the scope of your engagement as the Litigation progresses, in consultation with you, to address developments in discovery, changes to the claims or defenses asserted, or other case-related circumstances.

3.1 Lost-Profits Analysis

A principal component of your engagement will be to analyze and opine upon GenomeDx's entitlement to lost profits as a measure of patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Your analysis should encompass the following elements:

(a) Panduit Test and Two-Supplier Market Theory. You should apply the four-factor Panduit test (Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)) to determine whether GenomeDx can satisfy the requirements for an award of lost profits — namely, (i) demand for the patented product; (ii) absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives; (iii) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and (iv) the amount of profit GenomeDx would have made. Additionally, or in the alternative, you should consider whether a two-supplier market theory is applicable, given the competitive dynamics of the genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing market.

(b) Market Share and Competitive Dynamics. GenomeDx held a pre-ProstaSignal™ market share of approximately 74% in the genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing market as of fiscal year 2024. Following the commercial launch of Helios's ProstaSignal™ in October 2024, GenomeDx's market share declined to approximately 68%. You should analyze the extent to which this decline is attributable to the introduction of ProstaSignal™ and the consequent diversion of test volume from GenomeDx's Decipher® test to the Accused Product.

(c) Diverted Test Volume. Based on preliminary analysis, we estimate that approximately 6,100 of the approximately 8,400 ProstaSignal™ tests performed by Helios during the period from October 2024 through approximately March 2025 represent tests that would have been performed by GenomeDx using its Decipher® test absent Helios's infringement. You should independently evaluate and, if appropriate, refine or adjust this estimate based on your analysis of the relevant market data, competitive dynamics, and demand characteristics.

(d) Lost Revenue Calculation. GenomeDx's average reimbursement per Decipher® test was $4,210 in fiscal year 2024. Applying this figure to the estimated 6,100 diverted tests yields estimated lost revenue of approximately $25,681,000 (i.e., 6,100 tests × $4,210 per test). You should independently verify the average reimbursement figure and evaluate any adjustments that may be warranted based on payer mix, reimbursement trends, or other factors.

(e) Incremental Margin and Lost Profits. GenomeDx's incremental margin on Decipher® tests — that is, the contribution margin reflecting the additional revenue minus the additional variable costs associated with performing each incremental test — is approximately 72%. Applying this incremental margin to the estimated lost revenue yields estimated lost profits of approximately $18,490,320 (i.e., $25,681,000 × 0.72). You should independently evaluate GenomeDx's incremental cost structure and assess the appropriate incremental margin to be applied in your analysis.

(f) But-For World Analysis and Demand Elasticity. You should construct a but-for world analysis modeling the market for genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing as it would have existed absent Helios's infringement, including consideration of demand elasticity and any price effects attributable to the introduction of ProstaSignal™. In doing so, you should consider the extent to which any portion of ProstaSignal™ test volume represents incremental market demand that would not have been captured by GenomeDx in the but-for world, as well as any tests that may have been performed by other non-infringing competitors.

(g) Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives. You should assess whether acceptable non-infringing alternatives to GenomeDx's Decipher® test and Helios's ProstaSignal™ were available during the damages period, and the extent to which the existence of such alternatives, if any, affects GenomeDx's entitlement to lost profits or the quantum of lost profits.

(h) Broader Financial Context. For contextual purposes and to support your margin analysis, you should consider GenomeDx's fiscal year 2024 financial performance, including total revenue of $387.6 million and EBITDA of $54.3 million (representing an EBITDA margin of approximately 14.0%).

3.2 Reasonable-Royalty Analysis (Alternative)

As an alternative to lost profits, or for any portion of Helios's infringing sales for which lost profits cannot be established, you should calculate a reasonable royalty under the framework established by Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), and its progeny, as a floor of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Your reasonable-royalty analysis should encompass the following:

(a) Royalty Base. The proposed royalty base for your analysis is Helios's ProstaSignal™ revenue during the damages period from October 2024 through approximately March 2025, which is estimated to be approximately $32,088,000, based on approximately 8,400 tests performed at an average reimbursement of $3,820 per test. You should independently evaluate the appropriateness of this royalty base, including whether the entire revenue from ProstaSignal™ constitutes the proper royalty base or whether apportionment is required under the applicable case law, including Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

(b) Proposed Royalty Rate. We anticipate that the evidence will support a reasonable royalty rate of approximately 18% of net revenue from ProstaSignal™ tests. You should independently evaluate this rate in light of your Georgia-Pacific analysis and adjust it as warranted by the evidence.

(c) Reasonable Royalty Calculation. Applying the proposed 18% royalty rate to the estimated royalty base of $32,088,000 yields reasonable royalty damages of approximately $5,775,840 (i.e., $32,088,000 × 0.18). This figure represents the floor of damages under Section 284 in the event that lost profits cannot be fully established.

3.3 Georgia-Pacific Factor Analysis

Your reasonable-royalty analysis should include a detailed application of the hypothetical negotiation framework, analyzing each of the fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors as applied to the specific facts of this case. In conducting this analysis, you should give particular attention to the following considerations:

(a) The directly competitive relationship between GenomeDx's Decipher® test and Helios's ProstaSignal™, both of which are genomic prognostic tests for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy, both of which are reimbursed under the Medicare MolDX program, and both of which target the same population of ordering physicians (urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists). GenomeDx's Decipher® test is assigned MAAA code 0047M, and Helios's ProstaSignal™ is assigned MAAA code 0239M.

(b) The strength and scope of GenomeDx's patent portfolio, which encompasses forty-seven (47) issued United States patents, twelve (12) pending United States patent applications, and nineteen (19) international family members, covering various aspects of multi-gene expression-based diagnostic and prognostic methods and systems.

(d) The nature and scope of the license that the hypothetical licensor (GenomeDx) and licensee (Helios) would have negotiated at the time of first infringement, including the commercial relationship between the parties and the extent of competitive harm GenomeDx would anticipate from granting a license to Helios for use in the directly competitive prostate cancer prognostic testing market.

(e) The profitability of the Accused Product to Helios and the commercial benefit conferred by the patented technology, including the significance of the 19-of-24 gene overlap between ProstaSignal™ and GenomeDx's patented gene panel.

3.4 Veridian Molecular Labs License Comparability

A critical element of your Georgia-Pacific analysis — particularly with respect to Georgia-Pacific factor 12 (established royalty) — will be your assessment of the comparability of the non-exclusive license agreement dated April 3, 2022, between GenomeDx (as licensor) and Veridian Molecular Labs, Inc. ("Veridian") (as licensee) (the "Veridian License"). The key terms of the Veridian License are as follows:

• The Veridian License granted Veridian non-exclusive rights under the '271 Patent and the '893 Patent (two of the three Patents-in-Suit) for use in connection with Veridian's bladder cancer diagnostic product.

• The Veridian License provides for a running royalty of 15% of net revenues generated by Veridian's licensed product, subject to a minimum annual royalty of $500,000.

• The term of the Veridian License is co-extensive with the life of the licensed patents.

Your analysis of the Veridian License should address the following:

(a) Comparability Assessment. Evaluate the degree to which the Veridian License is a comparable agreement for purposes of establishing or supporting the proposed 18% royalty rate in this case. Consider the technological, commercial, and economic similarities and differences between the Veridian License and the hypothetical license that would have been negotiated between GenomeDx and Helios.

(b) Field-of-Use Limitation. The Veridian License was limited in its field-of-use to bladder cancer diagnostics. Veridian's licensed product does not directly compete with GenomeDx's Decipher® test in the prostate cancer prognostic testing market. By contrast, Helios's ProstaSignal™ directly competes with Decipher® in the prostate cancer market, which is GenomeDx's core commercial market. This distinction is significant because a licensor such as GenomeDx would be expected to demand a higher royalty rate for a license that enables the licensee to compete directly in the licensor's primary market.

(c) Direct Competitive Overlap. Assess the impact of the direct competitive overlap between ProstaSignal™ and Decipher® on the hypothetical negotiation, including the risk of market share erosion, price competition, and loss of customer relationships.

(d) Litigation Context. Consider the fact that the hypothetical negotiation in this case is being reconstructed in the context of an established infringement, as opposed to the arm's-length negotiation that produced the Veridian License, and the implications of that context for the royalty rate.

(e) Basis for Upward Adjustment. Based on the foregoing considerations, you should opine on the basis for adjusting the 15% royalty rate established in the Veridian License upward to the proposed 18% royalty rate (or such other rate as you determine to be appropriate), reflecting the additional value and competitive significance of a license in the directly competitive prostate cancer prognostic testing field.

3.5 Ongoing Royalty / Injunctive Relief Support

If requested by counsel, you should be prepared to opine on an appropriate ongoing royalty rate to be applied post-judgment in the event that the Court declines to enter a permanent injunction following a finding of infringement, consistent with the framework established by Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and subsequent Federal Circuit precedent, including Paice LLC v. Northpoint Enterprises Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, if the Court or jury determines that Helios's infringement was willful, you should be prepared to address the implications of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for your damages analysis, including whether and to what extent a royalty rate enhancement is warranted in light of willful infringement.

3.6 Anticipated Deliverables

The deliverables expected in connection with this engagement are as follows:

(a) Written Expert Report. You will prepare and submit a written expert report that complies in all respects with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The expert report is currently due on May 15, 2026, and must contain a complete statement of all opinions you will express and the basis and reasons for them, as well as the data or other information considered in forming those opinions, any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions, your qualifications and publications, a list of all cases in which you have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition during the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

(b) Rebuttal Expert Report. If necessary, you will prepare and submit a rebuttal expert report addressing the opinions offered by Helios's damages expert. The rebuttal expert report is currently due on July 10, 2026.

(c) Deposition Testimony. You should anticipate being deposed by Helios's counsel following the service of your expert report. You should be available for deposition preparation sessions with Calderwood & Harkness prior to your deposition.

(d) Trial Testimony. You should anticipate providing live testimony at trial, currently scheduled for February 2027. Trial preparation sessions with Calderwood & Harkness will be scheduled in advance of trial.

(e) Review of Defendant's Damages Expert Report. You will assist counsel in reviewing and analyzing the expert report submitted by Helios's damages expert, and provide your assessment of the methodology, assumptions, and conclusions contained therein.

(f) Consultation on Damages-Related discovery. You will be available to consult with counsel regarding damages-related discovery, including the review and analysis of Helios's financial data produced in discovery, the identification of additional documents or data needed for your analysis, and the formulation of discovery requests related to damages issues.

4. Materials and Information to Be Provided

Calderwood & Harkness will provide you with the following categories of materials and information in connection with this engagement. All materials will be provided subject to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order and the confidentiality obligations set forth in Section 6 of this Engagement Letter. Materials will be provided on a rolling basis as they become available, and we will coordinate with you regarding the timing and format of document productions.

(a) GenomeDx Financial Records. Revenue, cost, and margin data for the Decipher® test, including test volume, average reimbursement per test, payer mix, variable costs, fixed cost allocations, and incremental margin calculations. GenomeDx's fiscal year 2024 financial statements, audited by Whitfield & Garner LLP, will be provided in their entirety, along with such additional historical financial data and internal financial analyses as may be relevant to your analysis.

(b) Helios Financial Records Produced in discovery. Financial data relating to ProstaSignal™, including revenue, pricing, cost data, test volume, reimbursement data, and profitability information, as produced by Helios in discovery. As of the date of this letter, Helios has produced approximately 167,000 documents in discovery. We note that an ongoing privilege dispute exists regarding thirty-four (34) documents withheld by Helios from production; depending on the resolution of that dispute by Magistrate Judge Cabrera, additional documents may become available for your review.

(c) Veridian Molecular Labs License Agreement. A copy of the non-exclusive license agreement dated April 3, 2022, between GenomeDx and Veridian Molecular Labs, Inc., as described in Section 3.4 above.

(d) Market Data. Data and reports concerning the genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing market, including market size, growth rates, market share information for GenomeDx, Helios, and any other competitors, reimbursement trends, ordering patterns, and payer coverage decisions.

(e) Deposition Transcripts. Transcripts of depositions of key fact witnesses, including the anticipated depositions of Thomas Brennan (GenomeDx's Chief Financial Officer), Derek Mallinson (Helios's Vice President of Commercial Operations), Dr. Nathan Ashford (Helios's Chief Executive Officer), and other witnesses as depositions are completed during the fact discovery period.

(f) Patents-in-Suit and Prosecution History Files. Copies of each of the three Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,438,271; 11,204,893; and 11,891,647) and their complete prosecution history files.

(g) Claim Charts and Infringement Analysis. Claim charts and detailed infringement analyses prepared by Calderwood & Harkness mapping the asserted claims of each Patent-in-Suit to the features and functionality of Helios's ProstaSignal™ product. These materials are provided subject to applicable work-product protections and are furnished solely for the purpose of providing you with a foundation for understanding the technical scope of the asserted claims and the nature of the alleged infringement.

(h) Additional Materials. Any additional documents, data, or information as may be reasonably required for your analysis, including but not limited to industry publications, academic literature, third-party market research reports, regulatory filings, and such other materials as you may identify as relevant to the formation of your opinions.

We will work closely with you to ensure that you have timely access to all materials necessary for your analysis, and we encourage you to identify any additional categories of information or documents that you believe are relevant to your work as early in the engagement as practicable.

5. Compensation

(a) Hourly Rates. Dr. Tremaine's hourly rate for services rendered in connection with this engagement shall be $___ per hour. The hourly rates for supporting professional staff of Ashworth Economics Group LLC shall be as set forth in a rate schedule to be provided by Ashworth and approved by Calderwood & Harkness prior to the commencement of substantive work. All hourly rates are subject to periodic adjustment upon reasonable advance written notice by Ashworth to Calderwood & Harkness.

(b) Billing. Ashworth shall submit itemized invoices on a monthly basis to Calderwood & Harkness LLP, Attention: Alan Ngo, Billing Partner, at the address set forth in the letterhead of this Engagement Letter or at such other address or email as Mr. Ngo may designate. Each invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed description of the services performed, the date on which services were performed, the identity of the professional performing the services, and the time expended.

(c) Expenses. Calderwood & Harkness will reimburse Ashworth for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with this engagement, including travel expenses (airfare, lodging, ground transportation, and meals), photocopying, data processing, and other reasonable costs. Expenses in excess of $2,500 for any single item or category should be approved in advance by Catherine Bloom or Alan Ngo.

(d) Independence of Compensation. Ashworth's compensation for services rendered in connection with this engagement is not contingent upon the outcome of the Litigation, the content or substance of Dr. Tremaine's opinions, or the amount of damages ultimately awarded in the case. This provision is included to ensure compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(vi) and to preserve the independence and credibility of Dr. Tremaine's expert testimony.

(e) Insurance Coordination. We note for your information that GenomeDx carries intellectual property enforcement insurance through Greystone Specialty Insurance Co. (Policy No. GSI-IP-2024-07812), providing coverage of up to $10,000,000, subject to a $2,500,000 deductible and an 80/20 co-insurance arrangement. Expert fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation may be covered, in whole or in part, under the terms of that policy. Billing and payment for your services will be coordinated through Alan Ngo in accordance with any applicable insurance requirements, and we may from time to time request that invoices be formatted in a manner that facilitates insurance reimbursement. This insurance arrangement does not alter Ashworth's obligation to submit invoices to Calderwood & Harkness as described above, and payment of invoices remains the responsibility of Calderwood & Harkness on behalf of GenomeDx regardless of the status of any insurance claim.

6. Confidentiality Obligations

In connection with this engagement, you will have access to confidential and proprietary information belonging to GenomeDx, Helios, and potentially other third parties. Your obligations with respect to such information are as follows:

(a) Stipulated Protective Order. Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC shall be bound by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 in Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (the "Protective Order"). The Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality designation system: materials may be designated as "Confidential" or as "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." Each designation carries specific restrictions on who may access the designated materials and the purposes for which they may be used. You should familiarize yourself thoroughly with the terms of the Protective Order, a copy of which is enclosed with this Engagement Letter as Enclosure A.

(b) Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound. Prior to receiving any materials designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective Order, Dr. Tremaine must execute the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form attached to the Protective Order. A copy of the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form is enclosed with this Engagement Letter as Enclosure B. Please execute and return the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form at your earliest convenience following execution of this Engagement Letter. Any member of Ashworth's professional staff who will have access to designated materials must also execute the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form prior to accessing such materials.

(c) Use Limitation. All materials provided to you in connection with this engagement — whether or not designated under the Protective Order — are to be used solely for purposes of this Litigation and may not be used for any other purpose, including any other litigation, business purpose, academic research, or publication.

(d) Return or Destruction. Upon the conclusion of this engagement, or upon request by Calderwood & Harkness at any time, you shall promptly return or destroy all materials provided to you in connection with the engagement, including all copies, notes, work papers, and electronic files containing or derived from such materials, in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order. You shall certify in writing to Calderwood & Harkness that you have complied with this obligation.

(e) Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product. In the course of this engagement, you may receive information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. You shall not disclose any such privileged or protected information to any person outside of the engagement team, including in your expert report, deposition testimony, or trial testimony, without the express prior authorization of Calderwood & Harkness. If you are uncertain whether particular information is privileged or protected, you should consult with Catherine Bloom or Peter Vassiliev before disclosing it.

7. Independence and Expert Obligations

(a) Independence. Dr. Tremaine is retained to provide independent, objective expert opinions based on the facts and data available to her. While Calderwood & Harkness will provide you with legal guidance regarding the applicable legal standards and frameworks, the substance of your opinions must reflect your own independent professional judgment. You are not an advocate for GenomeDx; rather, you are an independent expert whose role is to assist the trier of fact in understanding complex economic and financial issues relevant to the determination of damages.

(b) Reasonable Degree of Economic Certainty. All opinions expressed by Dr. Tremaine in her expert report and testimony should be expressed to a reasonable degree of economic certainty, consistent with the standards applicable to expert testimony in federal court.

(c) Daubert and Rule 702 Compliance. All opinions must be supportable under the standards established by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny, as well as Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This means that your opinions must be based on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflect a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. You should be prepared to explain and defend your methodology in deposition and at trial.

(d) Availability. Dr. Tremaine is expected to be available for deposition testimony following the service of her expert report, and for trial testimony currently scheduled for February 2027. We will coordinate scheduling with you well in advance of any such testimony. In addition, Dr. Tremaine should be available for reasonable consultation with counsel throughout the engagement period on an as-needed basis.

(e) Disclosure Obligations. Dr. Tremaine's expert report must include all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), including: (i) a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered in forming those opinions; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinions; (iv) Dr. Tremaine's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the preceding ten (10) years; (v) a list of all other cases in which Dr. Tremaine has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition during the preceding four (4) years; and (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in this case.

8. Conflicts of Interest

By executing this Engagement Letter, Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC confirm that they have conducted a reasonable conflicts check and that, as of the date of execution, no existing conflict of interest exists with respect to Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, or any other party or counsel of record in this matter. For purposes of this provision, a "conflict of interest" includes any current or prior engagement by or on behalf of any of the foregoing entities or individuals, any financial interest in any of the foregoing entities, or any personal or professional relationship that could reasonably be perceived as compromising the independence or objectivity of Dr. Tremaine's expert opinions.

If at any time during the course of this engagement Dr. Tremaine or Ashworth becomes aware of any actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any party, counsel, or affiliate involved in this Litigation, Dr. Tremaine shall promptly notify Catherine Bloom at Calderwood & Harkness in writing. Upon notification, the parties will discuss in good faith whether the conflict can be appropriately managed or whether termination of the engagement is necessary.

9. Term and Termination

This engagement shall commence upon execution of this Engagement Letter by both parties and shall continue through the conclusion of the Litigation, including any post-trial proceedings and appeals, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Either Calderwood & Harkness (on behalf of GenomeDx) or Ashworth Economics Group LLC may terminate this engagement upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, Ashworth shall be compensated for all services rendered and expenses incurred through the effective date of termination in accordance with Section 5 of this Engagement Letter. The confidentiality obligations set forth in Section 6 of this Engagement Letter, and any obligations arising under the Stipulated Protective Order, shall survive the termination of this engagement.

10. Relationship of the Parties

Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC are engaged as independent contractors for purposes of this engagement. Nothing in this Engagement Letter shall be construed to create an employer-employee relationship, a partnership, a joint venture, or any agency relationship between Ashworth (or Dr. Tremaine) and Calderwood & Harkness LLP or Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth shall be solely responsible for all taxes, insurance, and other obligations arising from their status as independent contractors.

11. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution

This Engagement Letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction. Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Engagement Letter, or the breach, termination, or validity thereof, shall be resolved by binding arbitration administered by JAMS in San Francisco, California, in accordance with the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures then in effect. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single arbitrator selected in accordance with such rules. Judgment on any arbitration award may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs in any arbitration proceeding unless the arbitrator determines otherwise.

12. Acceptance

If the terms of this Engagement Letter are acceptable to you, please so indicate by signing in the space provided below and returning an executed copy of this letter to the undersigned. We look forward to working with you on this matter and are confident that your expertise and experience will be invaluable to the successful prosecution of GenomeDx's damages claims.

Please do not hesitate to contact me or Peter Vassiliev if you have any questions regarding this Engagement Letter or the scope of the engagement.

Very truly yours,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Name: Catherine Bloom

Title: Partner

Date: ________

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

ASHWORTH ECONOMICS GROUP LLC

By: ________

Name: Dr. Louise Tremaine

Title: Managing Director

Date: ________

CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

The undersigned, as General Counsel of Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., hereby acknowledges and consents to the retention of Dr. Louise Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC as plaintiff's damages expert in the above-referenced matter, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Engagement Letter.

GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC.

By: ________

Name: Victoria Sung

Title: General Counsel

Date: ________

Enclosures

The following documents are enclosed with this Engagement Letter:

Enclosure A: Stipulated Protective Order (entered December 18, 2025), Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Enclosure B: Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form (for execution by Dr. Tremaine and any Ashworth staff members who will access designated materials under the Protective Order).

Enclosure C: Copies of the Patents-in-Suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,438,271; U.S. Patent No. 11,204,893; and U.S. Patent No. 11,891,647.

Enclosure D: Complaint, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (filed March 28, 2025).

Enclosure E: Scheduling Order (entered June 18, 2025), noting the following key deadlines:

• Expert Reports: May 15, 2026

• Rebuttal Expert Reports: July 10, 2026

• Markman Hearing: September 18, 2026

• Trial: February 2027

DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This document is a draft prepared for discussion purposes and is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Distribution of this document is restricted to authorized recipients only.

DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law
555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 793-4000 Facsimile: (415) 793-4001 www.calderwoodharkness.com
February __, 2026
Dr. Louise Tremaine Managing Director Ashworth Economics Group LLC 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60606
Re: Retention as Damages Expert — *Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc.*, Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL, United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Dear Dr. Tremaine:
1. Introduction and Purpose of Engagement
This letter agreement (the "Engagement Letter") sets forth the terms and conditions under which you, Dr. Louise Tremaine, and your firm, Ashworth Economics Group LLC ("Ashworth" or the "Expert Firm"), are retained as plaintiff's damages expert on behalf of Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. ("GenomeDx" or "GDT") in the above-referenced patent infringement action.
Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("Calderwood & Harkness" or the "Firm") represents GenomeDx, a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4750 Torrey Pines Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, in the matter of Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Litigation"). GenomeDx is a molecular diagnostics company specializing in the development and commercialization of genomic tests for urologic oncology. Its principal commercial product is the Decipher® Prostate genomic classifier test, a 22-gene expression-based prognostic test for prostate cancer that is used by urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists to guide post-surgical treatment decisions. GenomeDx reported fiscal year 2024 revenue of approximately $387.6 million. GenomeDx is majority-owned (approximately 62.4%) by Pinnacle Biosciences Capital, LP, a life sciences-focused private equity fund.
The Litigation is assigned to the Honorable Jessica W. Langston, United States District Judge. The Honorable David R. Cabrera, United States Magistrate Judge, is assigned for purposes of resolving discovery disputes and other pretrial matters as referred by the Court. In this action, GenomeDx asserts three United States patents against the defendant, Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"), relating to Helios's ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier product, which was commercially launched on October 7, 2024. Each of the asserted patents, the accused product, and the procedural posture of the Litigation are described in further detail in Section 2 of this Engagement Letter.
The engagement team at Calderwood & Harkness for this matter consists of Catherine Bloom (Responsible Partner), Alan Ngo (Billing Partner), Peter Vassiliev (Lead Associate), and Wendy Schultz (Working Associate). Catherine Bloom will serve as your primary contact at the Firm for substantive matters relating to this engagement, and Alan Ngo will serve as your primary contact for billing and administrative matters.
This Engagement Letter sets forth the scope of your retention, the materials and information to be provided to you, the compensation terms, confidentiality obligations, and other terms governing this engagement. We ask that you review this letter carefully. Upon execution by both parties, this letter will constitute the binding agreement between Calderwood & Harkness LLP (on behalf of GenomeDx) and Ashworth Economics Group LLC regarding the engagement described herein.
2. Background of the Litigation
To provide context for the scope of your anticipated analysis and opinions, we summarize below the key facts concerning the patents-in-suit, the accused product, the defendant, and the procedural posture of the Litigation. Additional factual background, documentary evidence, and financial data will be furnished to you as described in Section 4 of this Engagement Letter.
2.1 Patents-in-Suit.  GenomeDx asserts three United States patents against Helios in this action (collectively, the "Patents-in-Suit"):
(a) U.S. Patent No. 10,438,271 (the "'271 Patent"). Entitled "Methods for Predicting Prostate Cancer Outcomes Using Multi-Gene Expression Classifiers," the '271 Patent was filed on June 14, 2016, and issued on October 8, 2019. The '271 Patent expires on June 14, 2036. GenomeDx asserts Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 18 of the '271 Patent against Helios. The '271 Patent generally claims methods of using a multi-gene expression classifier to predict clinical outcomes, including the probability of metastatic progression, in prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy. The claimed methods involve measuring expression levels of a specified panel of genes in a tissue sample, applying a classification algorithm to the measured expression levels, and generating a prognostic score used to stratify patients into risk categories.
(b) U.S. Patent No. 11,204,893 (the "'893 Patent"). Entitled "Genomic Classifier Systems and Methods for Post-Surgical Cancer Prognosis," the '893 Patent was filed on March 22, 2019, as a continuation of the '271 Patent family, and issued on December 21, 2021. The '893 Patent expires on June 14, 2036 (co-terminal with the '271 Patent by virtue of its continuation relationship). GenomeDx asserts Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 20 of the '893 Patent against Helios. The '893 Patent claims systems and methods incorporating a genomic classifier with computer-implemented data processing components for generating post-surgical prognostic assessments in cancer patients.
(c) U.S. Patent No. 11,891,647 (the "'647 Patent"). Entitled "Improved Methods for Genomic Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer Using Combined Biomarker and Clinical Variable Models," the '647 Patent was filed on September 9, 2021, and issued on February 6, 2024. The '647 Patent expires on September 9, 2041. GenomeDx asserts Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, and 15 of the '647 Patent against Helios. The '647 Patent claims methods for genomic risk stratification that combine gene expression biomarker data with clinical variables — such as Gleason grade group and pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels — to generate a combined prognostic model with improved predictive accuracy compared to genomic data or clinical variables alone.
Collectively, the Patents-in-Suit cover foundational aspects of multi-gene expression-based prognostic testing for prostate cancer, including the underlying methods of gene expression measurement and classification, the systems used to implement such methods, and the combination of genomic and clinical data for enhanced prognostic accuracy. GenomeDx holds a substantial patent portfolio beyond the Patents-in-Suit, comprising forty-seven (47) issued United States patents, twelve (12) pending United States patent applications, and nineteen (19) international family members. The breadth and depth of GenomeDx's patent portfolio is relevant to your Georgia-Pacific factor analysis, as discussed below.
2.2 Accused Product
The accused product in this Litigation is Helios's ProstaSignal™ Genomic Classifier (the "Accused Product" or "ProstaSignal™"). ProstaSignal™ is a 24-gene expression-based prognostic test for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Of the twenty-four genes included in the ProstaSignal™ panel, nineteen (19) overlap directly with the genes used in GenomeDx's patented and commercially marketed Decipher® test, which employs a 22-gene panel. This substantial overlap in gene content is a key element of GenomeDx's infringement theory and is also relevant to your assessment of the competitive relationship between the two products.
ProstaSignal™ uses a gradient-boosted decision tree classifier algorithm to analyze the expression data from its 24-gene panel, generating a numerical score designated as the "ProstaScore," which ranges from 0 to 100. Based on the ProstaScore, patients are classified into three risk categories: Low, Intermediate, or High risk of adverse outcomes (including metastatic progression) following radical prostatectomy. In addition to the genomic ProstaScore, ProstaSignal™ combines the ProstaScore with clinical variables, specifically Gleason grade group and pre-operative PSA, to produce an integrated risk assessment. This combination of genomic and clinical variables is directly relevant to GenomeDx's infringement allegations under the '647 Patent.
ProstaSignal™ was commercially launched on October 7, 2024, and has been marketed to urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists as an alternative to GenomeDx's Decipher® test. As discussed further below, Helios has performed approximately 8,400 ProstaSignal™ tests during the period from its commercial launch through approximately March 2025, generating revenue of approximately $32,088,000 at an average reimbursement of $3,820 per test. Both GenomeDx's Decipher® test and Helios's ProstaSignal™ are reimbursed through the Medicare MolDX program, with GenomeDx's Decipher® test assigned Multianalyte Assays with Algorithmic Analyses (MAAA) code 0047M and Helios's ProstaSignal™ assigned MAAA code 0239M.
2.3 Defendant.  Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios") is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 200 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 600, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140. Helios operates a CLIA-certified clinical laboratory located at 9830 Mesa Rim Road, Suite 140, San Diego, California 92121, where ProstaSignal™ tests are processed. Helios was founded in 2019 and is led by Dr. Nathan Ashford (Chief Executive Officer) and Dr. Elaine Kossack (Chief Scientific Officer). Helios is majority-owned (approximately 58.7%) by Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, a healthcare and life sciences venture capital fund. For fiscal year 2024, Helios reported total revenue of approximately $71.2 million and employed approximately 215 individuals.
Helios is represented in this Litigation by the law firm of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, with Marcus Pellegrini serving as lead litigation partner.
2.4 Procedural Posture
The current procedural posture of the Litigation is as follows:
•  GenomeDx filed its Complaint on March 28, 2025, asserting claims of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 with respect to each of the three Patents-in-Suit.
•  Helios filed its Answer and Counterclaims on May 12, 2025, asserting defenses of non-infringement, invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103, and unenforceability. Helios's counterclaims seek declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit.
•  On January 13, 2026, the Court denied Helios's Motion to Dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-eligible subject matter), holding that GenomeDx's asserted claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter and are not abstract ideas under the Alice framework.
•  The case is currently in active fact discovery. The fact discovery close deadline is March 6, 2026.
•  Expert reports are due May 15, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports are due July 10, 2026.
•  A Markman claim construction hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2026.
•  Trial is currently set for February 2027.
•  A Stipulated Protective Order was entered by the Court on December 18, 2025. The Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality designation system: "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." Your obligations under the Protective Order are addressed in Section 6 of this Engagement Letter.
3. Scope of Engagement
You are being retained to serve as plaintiff's damages expert in this Litigation. The scope of your engagement, as currently anticipated, encompasses the following categories of analysis and opinion. We reserve the right to modify or expand the scope of your engagement as the Litigation progresses, in consultation with you, to address developments in discovery, changes to the claims or defenses asserted, or other case-related circumstances.
3.1 Lost-Profits Analysis
A principal component of your engagement will be to analyze and opine upon GenomeDx's entitlement to lost profits as a measure of patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Your analysis should encompass the following elements:
(a) Panduit Test and Two-Supplier Market Theory. You should apply the four-factor Panduit test (Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)) to determine whether GenomeDx can satisfy the requirements for an award of lost profits — namely, (i) demand for the patented product; (ii) absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives; (iii) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and (iv) the amount of profit GenomeDx would have made. Additionally, or in the alternative, you should consider whether a two-supplier market theory is applicable, given the competitive dynamics of the genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing market.
(b) Market Share and Competitive Dynamics. GenomeDx held a pre-ProstaSignal™ market share of approximately 74% in the genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing market as of fiscal year 2024. Following the commercial launch of Helios's ProstaSignal™ in October 2024, GenomeDx's market share declined to approximately 68%. You should analyze the extent to which this decline is attributable to the introduction of ProstaSignal™ and the consequent diversion of test volume from GenomeDx's Decipher® test to the Accused Product.
(c) Diverted Test Volume. Based on preliminary analysis, we estimate that approximately 6,100 of the approximately 8,400 ProstaSignal™ tests performed by Helios during the period from October 2024 through approximately March 2025 represent tests that would have been performed by GenomeDx using its Decipher® test absent Helios's infringement. You should independently evaluate and, if appropriate, refine or adjust this estimate based on your analysis of the relevant market data, competitive dynamics, and demand characteristics.
(d) Lost Revenue Calculation. GenomeDx's average reimbursement per Decipher® test was $4,210 in fiscal year 2024. Applying this figure to the estimated 6,100 diverted tests yields estimated lost revenue of approximately $25,681,000 (i.e., 6,100 tests × $4,210 per test). You should independently verify the average reimbursement figure and evaluate any adjustments that may be warranted based on payer mix, reimbursement trends, or other factors.
(e) Incremental Margin and Lost Profits. GenomeDx's incremental margin on Decipher® tests — that is, the contribution margin reflecting the additional revenue minus the additional variable costs associated with performing each incremental test — is approximately 72%. Applying this incremental margin to the estimated lost revenue yields estimated lost profits of approximately $18,490,320 (i.e., $25,681,000 × 0.72). You should independently evaluate GenomeDx's incremental cost structure and assess the appropriate incremental margin to be applied in your analysis.
(f) But-For World Analysis and Demand Elasticity. You should construct a but-for world analysis modeling the market for genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing as it would have existed absent Helios's infringement, including consideration of demand elasticity and any price effects attributable to the introduction of ProstaSignal™. In doing so, you should consider the extent to which any portion of ProstaSignal™ test volume represents incremental market demand that would not have been captured by GenomeDx in the but-for world, as well as any tests that may have been performed by other non-infringing competitors.
(g) Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives. You should assess whether acceptable non-infringing alternatives to GenomeDx's Decipher® test and Helios's ProstaSignal™ were available during the damages period, and the extent to which the existence of such alternatives, if any, affects GenomeDx's entitlement to lost profits or the quantum of lost profits.
(h) Broader Financial Context. For contextual purposes and to support your margin analysis, you should consider GenomeDx's fiscal year 2024 financial performance, including total revenue of $387.6 million and EBITDA of $54.3 million (representing an EBITDA margin of approximately 14.0%).
3.2 Reasonable-Royalty Analysis (Alternative)
As an alternative to lost profits, or for any portion of Helios's infringing sales for which lost profits cannot be established, you should calculate a reasonable royalty under the framework established by Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), and its progeny, as a floor of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Your reasonable-royalty analysis should encompass the following:
(a) Royalty Base. The proposed royalty base for your analysis is Helios's ProstaSignal™ revenue during the damages period from October 2024 through approximately March 2025, which is estimated to be approximately $32,088,000, based on approximately 8,400 tests performed at an average reimbursement of $3,820 per test. You should independently evaluate the appropriateness of this royalty base, including whether the entire revenue from ProstaSignal™ constitutes the proper royalty base or whether apportionment is required under the applicable case law, including Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
(b) Proposed Royalty Rate. We anticipate that the evidence will support a reasonable royalty rate of approximately 18% of net revenue from ProstaSignal™ tests. You should independently evaluate this rate in light of your Georgia-Pacific analysis and adjust it as warranted by the evidence.
(c) Reasonable Royalty Calculation. Applying the proposed 18% royalty rate to the estimated royalty base of $32,088,000 yields reasonable royalty damages of approximately $5,775,840 (i.e., $32,088,000 × 0.18). This figure represents the floor of damages under Section 284 in the event that lost profits cannot be fully established.
3.3 Georgia-Pacific Factor Analysis
Your reasonable-royalty analysis should include a detailed application of the hypothetical negotiation framework, analyzing each of the fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors as applied to the specific facts of this case. In conducting this analysis, you should give particular attention to the following considerations:
(a) The directly competitive relationship between GenomeDx's Decipher® test and Helios's ProstaSignal™, both of which are genomic prognostic tests for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy, both of which are reimbursed under the Medicare MolDX program, and both of which target the same population of ordering physicians (urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists). GenomeDx's Decipher® test is assigned MAAA code 0047M, and Helios's ProstaSignal™ is assigned MAAA code 0239M.
(b) The strength and scope of GenomeDx's patent portfolio, which encompasses forty-seven (47) issued United States patents, twelve (12) pending United States patent applications, and nineteen (19) international family members, covering various aspects of multi-gene expression-based diagnostic and prognostic methods and systems.
(c) Established royalty rates, including the Veridian Molecular Labs license discussed in Section 3.4 below.
(d) The nature and scope of the license that the hypothetical licensor (GenomeDx) and licensee (Helios) would have negotiated at the time of first infringement, including the commercial relationship between the parties and the extent of competitive harm GenomeDx would anticipate from granting a license to Helios for use in the directly competitive prostate cancer prognostic testing market.
(e) The profitability of the Accused Product to Helios and the commercial benefit conferred by the patented technology, including the significance of the 19-of-24 gene overlap between ProstaSignal™ and GenomeDx's patented gene panel.
3.4 Veridian Molecular Labs License Comparability
A critical element of your Georgia-Pacific analysis — particularly with respect to Georgia-Pacific factor 12 (established royalty) — will be your assessment of the comparability of the non-exclusive license agreement dated April 3, 2022, between GenomeDx (as licensor) and Veridian Molecular Labs, Inc. ("Veridian") (as licensee) (the "Veridian License"). The key terms of the Veridian License are as follows:
•  The Veridian License granted Veridian non-exclusive rights under the '271 Patent and the '893 Patent (two of the three Patents-in-Suit) for use in connection with Veridian's bladder cancer diagnostic product.
•  The Veridian License provides for a running royalty of 15% of net revenues generated by Veridian's licensed product, subject to a minimum annual royalty of $500,000.
•  The term of the Veridian License is co-extensive with the life of the licensed patents.
Your analysis of the Veridian License should address the following:
(a) Comparability Assessment. Evaluate the degree to which the Veridian License is a comparable agreement for purposes of establishing or supporting the proposed 18% royalty rate in this case. Consider the technological, commercial, and economic similarities and differences between the Veridian License and the hypothetical license that would have been negotiated between GenomeDx and Helios.
(b) Field-of-Use Limitation. The Veridian License was limited in its field-of-use to bladder cancer diagnostics. Veridian's licensed product does not directly compete with GenomeDx's Decipher® test in the prostate cancer prognostic testing market. By contrast, Helios's ProstaSignal™ directly competes with Decipher® in the prostate cancer market, which is GenomeDx's core commercial market. This distinction is significant because a licensor such as GenomeDx would be expected to demand a higher royalty rate for a license that enables the licensee to compete directly in the licensor's primary market.
(c) Direct Competitive Overlap. Assess the impact of the direct competitive overlap between ProstaSignal™ and Decipher® on the hypothetical negotiation, including the risk of market share erosion, price competition, and loss of customer relationships.
(d) Litigation Context. Consider the fact that the hypothetical negotiation in this case is being reconstructed in the context of an established infringement, as opposed to the arm's-length negotiation that produced the Veridian License, and the implications of that context for the royalty rate.
(e) Basis for Upward Adjustment. Based on the foregoing considerations, you should opine on the basis for adjusting the 15% royalty rate established in the Veridian License upward to the proposed 18% royalty rate (or such other rate as you determine to be appropriate), reflecting the additional value and competitive significance of a license in the directly competitive prostate cancer prognostic testing field.
3.5 Ongoing Royalty / Injunctive Relief Support
If requested by counsel, you should be prepared to opine on an appropriate ongoing royalty rate to be applied post-judgment in the event that the Court declines to enter a permanent injunction following a finding of infringement, consistent with the framework established by Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and subsequent Federal Circuit precedent, including Paice LLC v. Northpoint Enterprises Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, if the Court or jury determines that Helios's infringement was willful, you should be prepared to address the implications of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for your damages analysis, including whether and to what extent a royalty rate enhancement is warranted in light of willful infringement.
3.6 Anticipated Deliverables
The deliverables expected in connection with this engagement are as follows:
(a) Written Expert Report. You will prepare and submit a written expert report that complies in all respects with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The expert report is currently due on May 15, 2026, and must contain a complete statement of all opinions you will express and the basis and reasons for them, as well as the data or other information considered in forming those opinions, any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions, your qualifications and publications, a list of all cases in which you have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition during the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
(b) Rebuttal Expert Report. If necessary, you will prepare and submit a rebuttal expert report addressing the opinions offered by Helios's damages expert. The rebuttal expert report is currently due on July 10, 2026.
(c) Deposition Testimony. You should anticipate being deposed by Helios's counsel following the service of your expert report. You should be available for deposition preparation sessions with Calderwood & Harkness prior to your deposition.
(d) Trial Testimony. You should anticipate providing live testimony at trial, currently scheduled for February 2027. Trial preparation sessions with Calderwood & Harkness will be scheduled in advance of trial.
(e) Review of Defendant's Damages Expert Report. You will assist counsel in reviewing and analyzing the expert report submitted by Helios's damages expert, and provide your assessment of the methodology, assumptions, and conclusions contained therein.
(f) Consultation on Damages-Related discovery. You will be available to consult with counsel regarding damages-related discovery, including the review and analysis of Helios's financial data produced in discovery, the identification of additional documents or data needed for your analysis, and the formulation of discovery requests related to damages issues.
4. Materials and Information to Be Provided
Calderwood & Harkness will provide you with the following categories of materials and information in connection with this engagement. All materials will be provided subject to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order and the confidentiality obligations set forth in Section 6 of this Engagement Letter. Materials will be provided on a rolling basis as they become available, and we will coordinate with you regarding the timing and format of document productions.
(a) GenomeDx Financial Records. Revenue, cost, and margin data for the Decipher® test, including test volume, average reimbursement per test, payer mix, variable costs, fixed cost allocations, and incremental margin calculations. GenomeDx's fiscal year 2024 financial statements, audited by Whitfield & Garner LLP, will be provided in their entirety, along with such additional historical financial data and internal financial analyses as may be relevant to your analysis.
(b) Helios Financial Records Produced in discovery. Financial data relating to ProstaSignal™, including revenue, pricing, cost data, test volume, reimbursement data, and profitability information, as produced by Helios in discovery. As of the date of this letter, Helios has produced approximately 167,000 documents in discovery. We note that an ongoing privilege dispute exists regarding thirty-four (34) documents withheld by Helios from production; depending on the resolution of that dispute by Magistrate Judge Cabrera, additional documents may become available for your review.
(c) Veridian Molecular Labs License Agreement. A copy of the non-exclusive license agreement dated April 3, 2022, between GenomeDx and Veridian Molecular Labs, Inc., as described in Section 3.4 above.
(d) Market Data. Data and reports concerning the genomic prostate cancer prognostic testing market, including market size, growth rates, market share information for GenomeDx, Helios, and any other competitors, reimbursement trends, ordering patterns, and payer coverage decisions.
(e) Deposition Transcripts. Transcripts of depositions of key fact witnesses, including the anticipated depositions of Thomas Brennan (GenomeDx's Chief Financial Officer), Derek Mallinson (Helios's Vice President of Commercial Operations), Dr. Nathan Ashford (Helios's Chief Executive Officer), and other witnesses as depositions are completed during the fact discovery period.
(f) Patents-in-Suit and Prosecution History Files. Copies of each of the three Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,438,271; 11,204,893; and 11,891,647) and their complete prosecution history files.
(g) Claim Charts and Infringement Analysis. Claim charts and detailed infringement analyses prepared by Calderwood & Harkness mapping the asserted claims of each Patent-in-Suit to the features and functionality of Helios's ProstaSignal™ product. These materials are provided subject to applicable work-product protections and are furnished solely for the purpose of providing you with a foundation for understanding the technical scope of the asserted claims and the nature of the alleged infringement.
(h) Additional Materials. Any additional documents, data, or information as may be reasonably required for your analysis, including but not limited to industry publications, academic literature, third-party market research reports, regulatory filings, and such other materials as you may identify as relevant to the formation of your opinions.
We will work closely with you to ensure that you have timely access to all materials necessary for your analysis, and we encourage you to identify any additional categories of information or documents that you believe are relevant to your work as early in the engagement as practicable.
5. Compensation
(a) Hourly Rates. Dr. Tremaine's hourly rate for services rendered in connection with this engagement shall be $___ per hour. The hourly rates for supporting professional staff of Ashworth Economics Group LLC shall be as set forth in a rate schedule to be provided by Ashworth and approved by Calderwood & Harkness prior to the commencement of substantive work. All hourly rates are subject to periodic adjustment upon reasonable advance written notice by Ashworth to Calderwood & Harkness.
(b) Billing. Ashworth shall submit itemized invoices on a monthly basis to Calderwood & Harkness LLP, Attention: Alan Ngo, Billing Partner, at the address set forth in the letterhead of this Engagement Letter or at such other address or email as Mr. Ngo may designate. Each invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed description of the services performed, the date on which services were performed, the identity of the professional performing the services, and the time expended.
(c) Expenses. Calderwood & Harkness will reimburse Ashworth for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with this engagement, including travel expenses (airfare, lodging, ground transportation, and meals), photocopying, data processing, and other reasonable costs. Expenses in excess of $2,500 for any single item or category should be approved in advance by Catherine Bloom or Alan Ngo.
(d) Independence of Compensation. Ashworth's compensation for services rendered in connection with this engagement is not contingent upon the outcome of the Litigation, the content or substance of Dr. Tremaine's opinions, or the amount of damages ultimately awarded in the case. This provision is included to ensure compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(vi) and to preserve the independence and credibility of Dr. Tremaine's expert testimony.
(e) Insurance Coordination. We note for your information that GenomeDx carries intellectual property enforcement insurance through Greystone Specialty Insurance Co. (Policy No. GSI-IP-2024-07812), providing coverage of up to $10,000,000, subject to a $2,500,000 deductible and an 80/20 co-insurance arrangement. Expert fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation may be covered, in whole or in part, under the terms of that policy. Billing and payment for your services will be coordinated through Alan Ngo in accordance with any applicable insurance requirements, and we may from time to time request that invoices be formatted in a manner that facilitates insurance reimbursement. This insurance arrangement does not alter Ashworth's obligation to submit invoices to Calderwood & Harkness as described above, and payment of invoices remains the responsibility of Calderwood & Harkness on behalf of GenomeDx regardless of the status of any insurance claim.
6. Confidentiality Obligations
In connection with this engagement, you will have access to confidential and proprietary information belonging to GenomeDx, Helios, and potentially other third parties. Your obligations with respect to such information are as follows:
(a) Stipulated Protective Order. Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC shall be bound by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 in Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (the "Protective Order"). The Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality designation system: materials may be designated as "Confidential" or as "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." Each designation carries specific restrictions on who may access the designated materials and the purposes for which they may be used. You should familiarize yourself thoroughly with the terms of the Protective Order, a copy of which is enclosed with this Engagement Letter as Enclosure A.
(b) Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound. Prior to receiving any materials designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective Order, Dr. Tremaine must execute the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form attached to the Protective Order. A copy of the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form is enclosed with this Engagement Letter as Enclosure B. Please execute and return the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form at your earliest convenience following execution of this Engagement Letter. Any member of Ashworth's professional staff who will have access to designated materials must also execute the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form prior to accessing such materials.
(c) Use Limitation. All materials provided to you in connection with this engagement — whether or not designated under the Protective Order — are to be used solely for purposes of this Litigation and may not be used for any other purpose, including any other litigation, business purpose, academic research, or publication.
(d) Return or Destruction. Upon the conclusion of this engagement, or upon request by Calderwood & Harkness at any time, you shall promptly return or destroy all materials provided to you in connection with the engagement, including all copies, notes, work papers, and electronic files containing or derived from such materials, in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order. You shall certify in writing to Calderwood & Harkness that you have complied with this obligation.
(e) Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product. In the course of this engagement, you may receive information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. You shall not disclose any such privileged or protected information to any person outside of the engagement team, including in your expert report, deposition testimony, or trial testimony, without the express prior authorization of Calderwood & Harkness. If you are uncertain whether particular information is privileged or protected, you should consult with Catherine Bloom or Peter Vassiliev before disclosing it.
7. Independence and Expert Obligations
(a) Independence. Dr. Tremaine is retained to provide independent, objective expert opinions based on the facts and data available to her. While Calderwood & Harkness will provide you with legal guidance regarding the applicable legal standards and frameworks, the substance of your opinions must reflect your own independent professional judgment. You are not an advocate for GenomeDx; rather, you are an independent expert whose role is to assist the trier of fact in understanding complex economic and financial issues relevant to the determination of damages.
(b) Reasonable Degree of Economic Certainty. All opinions expressed by Dr. Tremaine in her expert report and testimony should be expressed to a reasonable degree of economic certainty, consistent with the standards applicable to expert testimony in federal court.
(c) Daubert and Rule 702 Compliance. All opinions must be supportable under the standards established by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny, as well as Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This means that your opinions must be based on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflect a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. You should be prepared to explain and defend your methodology in deposition and at trial.
(d) Availability. Dr. Tremaine is expected to be available for deposition testimony following the service of her expert report, and for trial testimony currently scheduled for February 2027. We will coordinate scheduling with you well in advance of any such testimony. In addition, Dr. Tremaine should be available for reasonable consultation with counsel throughout the engagement period on an as-needed basis.
(e) Disclosure Obligations. Dr. Tremaine's expert report must include all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), including: (i) a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered in forming those opinions; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinions; (iv) Dr. Tremaine's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the preceding ten (10) years; (v) a list of all other cases in which Dr. Tremaine has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition during the preceding four (4) years; and (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in this case.
8. Conflicts of Interest
By executing this Engagement Letter, Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC confirm that they have conducted a reasonable conflicts check and that, as of the date of execution, no existing conflict of interest exists with respect to Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, or any other party or counsel of record in this matter. For purposes of this provision, a "conflict of interest" includes any current or prior engagement by or on behalf of any of the foregoing entities or individuals, any financial interest in any of the foregoing entities, or any personal or professional relationship that could reasonably be perceived as compromising the independence or objectivity of Dr. Tremaine's expert opinions.
If at any time during the course of this engagement Dr. Tremaine or Ashworth becomes aware of any actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any party, counsel, or affiliate involved in this Litigation, Dr. Tremaine shall promptly notify Catherine Bloom at Calderwood & Harkness in writing. Upon notification, the parties will discuss in good faith whether the conflict can be appropriately managed or whether termination of the engagement is necessary.
9. Term and Termination
This engagement shall commence upon execution of this Engagement Letter by both parties and shall continue through the conclusion of the Litigation, including any post-trial proceedings and appeals, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Either Calderwood & Harkness (on behalf of GenomeDx) or Ashworth Economics Group LLC may terminate this engagement upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, Ashworth shall be compensated for all services rendered and expenses incurred through the effective date of termination in accordance with Section 5 of this Engagement Letter. The confidentiality obligations set forth in Section 6 of this Engagement Letter, and any obligations arising under the Stipulated Protective Order, shall survive the termination of this engagement.
10. Relationship of the Parties
Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC are engaged as independent contractors for purposes of this engagement. Nothing in this Engagement Letter shall be construed to create an employer-employee relationship, a partnership, a joint venture, or any agency relationship between Ashworth (or Dr. Tremaine) and Calderwood & Harkness LLP or Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. Dr. Tremaine and Ashworth shall be solely responsible for all taxes, insurance, and other obligations arising from their status as independent contractors.
11. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution
This Engagement Letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction. Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Engagement Letter, or the breach, termination, or validity thereof, shall be resolved by binding arbitration administered by JAMS in San Francisco, California, in accordance with the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures then in effect. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single arbitrator selected in accordance with such rules. Judgment on any arbitration award may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs in any arbitration proceeding unless the arbitrator determines otherwise.
12. Acceptance
If the terms of this Engagement Letter are acceptable to you, please so indicate by signing in the space provided below and returning an executed copy of this letter to the undersigned. We look forward to working with you on this matter and are confident that your expertise and experience will be invaluable to the successful prosecution of GenomeDx's damages claims.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Peter Vassiliev if you have any questions regarding this Engagement Letter or the scope of the engagement.
Very truly yours,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Name: Catherine Bloom
Title: Partner
Date: ________
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
ASHWORTH ECONOMICS GROUP LLC
By: ________
Name: Dr. Louise Tremaine
Title: Managing Director
Date: ________
CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
The undersigned, as General Counsel of Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc., hereby acknowledges and consents to the retention of Dr. Louise Tremaine and Ashworth Economics Group LLC as plaintiff's damages expert in the above-referenced matter, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Engagement Letter.
GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC.
By: ________
Name: Victoria Sung
Title: General Counsel
Date: ________
Enclosures
The following documents are enclosed with this Engagement Letter:
Enclosure A: Stipulated Protective Order (entered December 18, 2025), Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Enclosure B: Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound form (for execution by Dr. Tremaine and any Ashworth staff members who will access designated materials under the Protective Order).
Enclosure C: Copies of the Patents-in-Suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,438,271; U.S. Patent No. 11,204,893; and U.S. Patent No. 11,891,647.
Enclosure D: Complaint, Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. v. Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL (filed March 28, 2025).
Enclosure E: Scheduling Order (entered June 18, 2025), noting the following key deadlines:
•  Expert Reports: May 15, 2026
•  Rebuttal Expert Reports: July 10, 2026
•  Markman Hearing: September 18, 2026
•  Trial: February 2027
DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This document is a draft prepared for discussion purposes and is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Distribution of this document is restricted to authorized recipients only.

DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

ASHWORTH ECONOMICS GROUP LLC

CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC.

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts