steve-debenport-1

steve-debenport-1 / iStockphoto.com

17 May 2018Americas

Illumina and Sequenom take on Ariosa in DNA patent infringement case

Illumina and Sequenom have filed a patent infringement case against Ariosa Diagnostics for a patent covering DNA testing in pregnant women.

Already registered?

Login to your account

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk

More on this story

Court invalidates Illumina patents in Ariosa row

2 January 2019 Ariosa Diagnostics, a subsidiary of Swiss healthcare firm Roche, has won a patent dispute with American biotechnology firm Illumina.

Sequenom and Illumina prevail in UK confidentiality dispute

24 January 2019 The England and Wales High Court has ruled in favour of Sequenom and Illumina, after the companies asked the court to rule that they were entitled to receive confidential information in legal proceedings against three competitors without additional restriction.

More on this story

Court invalidates Illumina patents in Ariosa row

2 January 2019 Ariosa Diagnostics, a subsidiary of Swiss healthcare firm Roche, has won a patent dispute with American biotechnology firm Illumina.

Sequenom and Illumina prevail in UK confidentiality dispute

24 January 2019 The England and Wales High Court has ruled in favour of Sequenom and Illumina, after the companies asked the court to rule that they were entitled to receive confidential information in legal proceedings against three competitors without additional restriction.

More on this story

Court invalidates Illumina patents in Ariosa row

2 January 2019 Ariosa Diagnostics, a subsidiary of Swiss healthcare firm Roche, has won a patent dispute with American biotechnology firm Illumina.

Sequenom and Illumina prevail in UK confidentiality dispute

24 January 2019 The England and Wales High Court has ruled in favour of Sequenom and Illumina, after the companies asked the court to rule that they were entitled to receive confidential information in legal proceedings against three competitors without additional restriction.

More features

President Trump 2.0: Five major areas to watch

Startup CFO’s betrayal is a lesson in preparing for the worst

Sandoz lands reduced antitrust award of $70m

New president’s to-do list: Patent bills, non-competes, USPTO director?

Sanofi subsidiary fends off $450m trade secrets case

Regulatory expert joins White & Case

Teva faces $500m fine for antitrust breaches over MS drug

UK Budget: A missed opportunity?