Well that certainly didn't take long. Judge threw out the case against Illumina.
Law360, New York (August 29, 2012, 3:15 PM ET) -- A patent infringement crusade embarked upon by Helicos BioSciences Corp. ended on Tuesday as a Delaware federal judge found Helicos' remaining genetics analysis patent invalid, letting Illumina Inc. off the hook for allegedly incorporating it into its scanning technology.
U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson allowed Illumina, the last remaining defendant in the case, to exit after determining that the genetics analysis invention asserted by Helicos was not covered by the language of its patent description, granting Illumina's motion for summary judgment on invalidity.
"In sum, and based on the record created by the parties, the court concludes that Illumina has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the written description requirement has not been met," Judge Robinson said, finding that the language of the patent-in-suit failed to specifically outline the nature of the illumination system utilized in the analysis invention.
"The court has been unable to reconcile the language chosen by the inventor to describe his invention and the science at issue," the judge said. "Given this Hobson's choice, the court finds the [patent] invalid for lack of written description and enters judgment in favor of Illumina."
Helicos first raised the instant suit in August 2010, ultimately bringing patent infringement allegations against Illumina, Pacific Biosciences of California and Life Technologies Corp.
Cambridge, Mass.-based Helicos is a life sciences company that develops genetics analysis techniques for the research, discovery and clinical diagnostics markets. Its lawsuit against Illumina and the other defendants asserted a total of five separate patents, including U.S. Patent Number 7,593,109, titled, "Apparatus and methods for analyzing samples," issued in September 2009.
Though Pacific Biosciences and Life Technologies managed to exit the suit earlier this year — with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office having rejected several of the patents asserted against them — Illumina remained a defendant to allegations it infringed the '109 patent through the San Diego-based company's genetics scanning devices. Both Helicos and Illumina had moved the court for summary judgment — Illumina asserting noninfringement and patent invalidity and Helicos asserting infringement.
The '109 patent discloses an apparatus and method for analyzing biological samples by which a vacuum source pulls a microfluidic volume through analytic equipment and optics are in turn used to analyze the material contained in this volume. This optics system, as described in the patent, consists of a light source used for analysis and a second light source used to assess the path of the main source.
According to Illumina, the '109 patent language fails to set out just how this second "focusing" light source works, claiming that this lack of specificity dooms the patent's validity. Judge Robinson on Tuesday agreed.
"Although the parties seem to agree on the ordinary meaning of the word 'focus' … the complete limitation is in dispute," the judge said. "The parties agree that varying the angle of the optical path of the analytical light source will not make the image sharper or more in focus and the specification, not surprisingly, contains no description of such."
Accordingly, the judge said, the '109 patent is invalid.
Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment on Wednesday.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 7,593,109.
Helicos is represented by Richard D. Kirk and Stephen B. Brauerman of Bayard PA and Douglas J. Kline, Daniel M. Forman, Brian A. Fairchild, Sheryl Koval Garko and Kurt M. Kjelland of Goodwin Procter LLP.
Illumina is represented by Steven J. Balick and Lauren E. Maguire of Ashby & Geddes PA, and Jeffrey N. Costakos and Rebecca Jan Pirozzolo-Mellowes of Foley & Lardner LLP.
The case is Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina Inc., case number 1:10-cv-00735, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
