• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Monopoly position in prenatal diagnostics? Illumina wins major patent suits

15. February 2018

The market for non-invasive prenatal diagnostics is highly competitive. This makes two important patent suits that Illumina was able to win particularly in this area all the more conspicuous. Illumina receives $26.7 million in patent litigation against Ariosa Diagnostics and confirmation of a far-reaching patent.

Important judgment in non-invasive prenatal diagnostics

prenatale DiagnostikA few days ago, the U. S. District Court of the Northern District of California ruled in the long-standing case Illumina versus Ariosa Diagnostics. Inc / Roche. Illumina accused the competitor of infringing Illumina’s two patents by offering non-invasive prenatal tests: A method for multiplex nucleic acid reaction (U.S. Patent 7,955,794) and a method for detecting fetal anomalies (U.S. Patent 8,318,430). Illumina won its patent suit and receives $26.7 million from Ariosa Diagnostics / Roche. The judgement is of great importance for the market leadership in prenatal diagnostics, as the patented procedures hinder competitors in developing comparable tests under chromosomal conditions such as Down’s syndrome.

In detail, Illumina filed a lawsuit against Ariosa Diagnostics (3:14-cv-01921) in 2014 alleging that the company infringes Illumina’s patent on multiplex nucleic acid reaction because the Ariosa procedure is based on a targeted sequencing process that enables hundreds of DNA loci to be quantified simultaneously. The U. S. court followed this argument and banned Ariosa’s Harmony NIPT, including the use of digital analysis of selected regions (DANSR).

Targeted sequencing and microarray violate Illumina Patent

By 2015, the Swiss company Roche had taken over the company Ariosa Diagnostics and converted the previous sequencing to a so-called microarray. Illumina also sued this procedure because the microarray version of the test also infringed his patent: it used the same technique of sequencing as the former sequencing test. This action was decided in the present judgment. The Californian court found that both Ariosa’s sequencing and microarray-based tests violated several of the patent’s claims for the multiplex nucleic acid reaction. In addition, the court also found several patent infringements against the patent “Method for detecting fetal anomalies” in the sequencing procedure of the Ariosa test.

As early as November 2017, Illumina also was able to assert itself in front of the British Patent Court due to its patents on sequencing processes. In the case Illumina versus Premaitha Health PLC, the Court found that Premaitha’s IONA test infringed the Illuminas patents aimed at using sequencing in NIPT (non-invasive prenatal test). In addition, the U. K. court ruled that the IONA gender screening test also infringed Illumina’s patent (EP 0 994 963) and its subsidiary Verinata Health, Inc.

These two judgments strengthen Illumina’s position in the highly competitive prenatal diagnostics market. Without targeted sequencing, a meaningful chromosomal examination is hardly possible.

Human genes and gene sequences cannot be patented

The memory comes back to the handling of patents on genes and gene sequences. For about three decades, genes and gene sequences were patentable in America, particularly explosive, since the year 2000 enabled the complete human genome to be decoded. It is estimated that approximately 4000 patents on genes are still valid. But in 2013, a groundbreaking rethink took place: the United States Supreme Court declared that human genes and gene sequences are not patentable. Synthetically created human gene sequences, on the other hand, should be patentable. The European Patent Office has also taken a clear position on this issue: In an official announcement published on November 2016, the EU Commission considers that plants and animals derived from essentially biological processes cannot be granted patent protection under the EU legislature.

Are you looking for protection of your patents?

Please take your chance and contact us. You can request a non-binding call-back at:

CAT-call_en

 

Souces:

News Law 360

StockSnap / pixabay.com / CC0 License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  Patent Law,  Licenses Tag iconRoche,  U.S.,  Patent,  Illumina

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

7. March 2022
BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]