Illumina Inc. and Oxford Nanopore Technologies have reached a settlement in this legal battle, according to a U.S. International Trade Commission document released last week. Oxford has agreed not to import or sell any product containing a pore with an amino acid sequence at least 68% similar to Mycobacterium smegmatis porin (Msp)—the protein at the heart of Illumina's infringement claim—and to destroy any inventory of such products.
[...] Illumina, Inc.—which dominates the genetic sequencing industry—sued Oxford Nanopore Technologies, the first company to market a commercial nanopore platform. Illumina claims that Oxford's two flagship devices infringe on patents that Illumina controls.
[...] Illumina, meanwhile, has yet to release a nanopore platform
[...] Illumina's chance of winning the case might come down to a "very messy" aspect of patent law called the doctrine of equivalents, he says. The doctrine holds that a party can be liable for infringement even if their product doesn't literally match what's described in a patent, provided their product performs the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result as the patented invention.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/gene-sequencing-technology-sparks-patent-fight-shrouded-mystery
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:09PM
https://soylentnews.org/~gringer/ [soylentnews.org]
How big of a setback is this for Oxford Nanopore?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:19PM
I was wondering the same thing. It'll depend on if they were using the Msp in their MinION and how easy it would be to switch to a different porin.
I'll be paying attention because I was considering buying one, but the cost per run doesn't seem to be cost effective for my planned application.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:22PM
I think gringer is in Australia or New Zealand, so it might not affect him.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gringer on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:01PM
It's not at all a setback, except in the frustrating "oh no, not again" way. The wordwork that Oxford Nanopore have agreed on in the settlement document [sciencemag.org] is somewhat enlightening in this regard:
In short, it seems like ONT has done the minimum required to get this issue off their back, and are moving on with life. I see it as something like the US telling NZ that they aren't allowed to use Lego bricks for building houses in the United States.
If anything, it has changed ONT's process for the better. They are now disclosing at release time what their current commercially-available pores are derived from, which means it's more difficult for people to seriously claim otherwise.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:58PM
It sounds like patent lawyers are a bunch of smegheads.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:04PM
And Illumina [wikipedia.org] has grown from a plucky startup to a biomenace.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by gringer on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:04PM
That is rumoured to be the target of a takeover bid by Thermofisher [yahoo.com].
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]