Replies to post #909 on Sequenom Corp fka SQNM

[Bx3]

There may be one more problem, as appears to have been adequately decided in June 12,2015 Federal Circuit Court proceedings, involving suite #, or case # 14-1139 and 1144,Sequenom Vs. Ariosa ( can be googled) and apparently also Vs. Natera, that addressing possible patent infringement , it appears: court decision appears relative to a concept that the mentioned patent was on ineligible material and appears no infringement was made on Sequenom patent. If this is interpreted in error, please DD independently, always.

[martych]

I'm not sure I understand the comment. The only test in US that is at a discount is Harmony from old Ariosa. That test is targeted for low risk which is why SQNM launched VisibiliT to screen for T18/21 with a risk score rather than a full scan.

Natera product Panorama shows a higher ASP than SQNM. Verify is at about the same cost as M21.

Real issues for SQNM:
1) terrible guidance that led to a Q1 miss and a reduced guidance for rest of year. Looks like it's driven by IP Pool with ILMN that reports revenues on a lag but regardless it was a VERY painful awakening.

2) NTRA S-1 shows they have substantial Y/Y growth in NIPT where SQNM has none.

Authorized shs were approved though no clue why they need so many.
Q2 likely not pretty but 2H should improve as the licensing pool starts to ramp.

NTRA will be very interesting to watch in q2 as well