Posts Tagged: "Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc."

Paul Terasaki Revolutions Organ Donor-Recipient Matching With the Terasaki Tray

This July 8th marks the 32nd anniversary of the issue of a seminal patent in the field of organ donation and it protected a technology which became crucial for testing organ tissues to determine potential matches between organ donors and recipients. The lead inventor listed on this patent is Paul Terasaki, a 2018 inductee into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Once again, we return to our Evolution of Technology series to take a look at the history of organ transplants, the technology that has been developed to improve the success of those transplants and where Terasaki’s innovation fits into that story.

Cornell, Life Technologies Corporation Ordered to Enter Arbitration After Allegations of Fraudulent Inducement into Settlement Agreement

On Friday, January 19th, a magistrate judge in the District of Delaware entered a memorandum opinion ordering Cornell University to enter into arbitration proceedings to resolve a dispute with licensee Life Technologies Corporation. The dispute arises out of a patent infringement case in which both parties are plaintiffs after Cornell felt that it was fraudulently induced into a settlement agreement with Life Technologies and Illumina, Inc., the defendant in the case.

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corporation: What No One Is Telling the Supreme Court

In its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will once again consider the extraterritorial effect of U.S. patent law; specifically, whether “the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales.” Life Tech. Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538. Petitioners (all subsidiaries of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., which I shall collectively call “Life”) urge the Court to hold the statute requires “all or a large percentage closely approximating all” of the components of the invention to have been made in the United States. Though Promega Corporation has yet to respond, the Court should decline Life’s invitation. This does not mean, however, that the decision of the Federal Circuit, Promega Corp. v. Life Tech. Corp., 773 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014), should be affirmed. Rather, though none of the briefs filed in the case have said so, the Supreme Court should reverse because the single, commodity component at issue cannot, as a matter of law, even under Promega’s interpretation of the statute, comprise a “substantial portion” of the components of the invention.