Ariosa Liable for $26 Million in Lost Profits for Infringing Two Blood Test Patents

By Steve Brachmann
February 9, 2018

On January 25th, a jury verdict issued in the Northern District of California awarded more than $26 million to a group of plaintiffs including San Diego, CA-based gene analysis firm Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ:ILMN). The jury found that San Jose, CA-based molecular diagnostics firm Ariosa Diagnostics infringed upon two patents, awarding $15.7 million in lost profits to Illumina and nearly $11 million in lost profits to Redwood City, CA-based fetal and maternal health firm Verinata Health.

The jury’s lost profits award to Illumina was based on Ariosa’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7955794, titled Multiplex Nucleic Acid Reactions and issued to Illumina in June 2011. It claims a multiplex method for determining whether a sample contains at least 100 different target sequences for the amplification or genotyping of a variety of samples simultaneously. Verinata’s lost profits award was based on the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8318430, titled Methods of Fetal Abnormality Detection and issued in November 2012. It covers a method for determining a presence or absence of a fetal aneuploidy in a fetus for each of a plurality of maternal blood samples received from pregnant women in a way that enables massively parallel sequencing techniques by selectively enriching non-random polynucleotide sequences in samples.

Verinata first filed suit against Ariosa jointly with the Board of Trustees of Stanford University in October 2012, alleging that Ariosa’s Harmony Prenatal Test, a prenatal test for Down syndrome, infringed on its patent by sequencing predefined subsequences of maternal and fetal DNA present in the maternal blood draw. Verinata’s patents cover methods used by the company’s Verifi prenatal test, a test performed on a maternal blood sample to determine whether a fetus is at risk of having an abnormal number of chromosomes. In August 2015, Judge Susan Illston consolidated the Verinata case with Illumina’s case, which began with a complaint for patent infringement filed by Illumina against Ariosa and Roche in May 2015. In its complaint, Illumina noted that the Harmony test involved a multiplexing method for detecting target sequences using massively parallel sequencing which allegedly constituted patent infringement.

In the recent jury verdict, both Illumina and Verinata lost on willful infringement arguments made against Ariosa during the trial. However, the validity of both patents was confirmed after being challenged by Ariosa during the case. The jury found that Illumina’s ‘704 patent was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 grounds as anticipated by prior art. Further, the jury found that Verinata’s ‘430 patent was valid despite Ariosa’s validity challenges on 35 U.S.C. § 112 grounds both for enablement and written specification.

The Author

Steve Brachmann

Steve Brachmann is a writer located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He has become a regular contributor to IPWatchdog.com, writing about technology, innovation and is the primary author of the Companies We Follow series. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 1 Comment comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Bob Taylor February 10, 2018 10:00 am

    A welcome outcome indeed for Ariosa, particularly in the wake of the horrifying Sequenom decision a year or so ago. Let us all wish them well as they navigate the court of appeals and hope they can avoid that other court whose jurisprudence increasingly calls to mind Justice Jackson’s poignant observation in Jungerson v. Ostby & Barton that, in light of the Supreme Court’s strong passion for striking down patents, “the only valid patent is one this Court has not been able to get its hands on.”

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website