Premaitha Share Discussion Threads

[timojelly] 04/7/2016 07:22

Contract please

[timbo003] 04/7/2016 07:22

".....if Illumina and/or Sequenom have infringed the EU competition rules, then the Commission has the power to impose far-reaching licensing remedies, as well as to impose significant fines against these companies (up to 10 per cent of each company's worldwide group turnover). We hope, therefore, that the Commission's investigation will urgently cause Illumina and Sequenom to reconsider and modify their current practices to address the very serious concerns that have been raised"


That should focus Illumina's attention

[small crow] 04/7/2016 07:19

Their defence is looking very competent. Nice.

[ngen yap] 04/7/2016 07:14

With the US rulings and now this update, I feel confident. Next, quarterly update.

[folderboy] 04/7/2016 07:12

Indeed - but we are looking far more likely to be around tomorrow - and thence after. (Is that English?)

[tsmith2] 04/7/2016 07:10

More jam tomorrow..

[timojelly] 04/7/2016 07:05

Up yours Illumina!

[timojelly] 04/7/2016 06:47

Standby.....

[timojelly] 01/7/2016 11:59

Rns could be pre prepared.

[gooosed] 01/7/2016 11:51

timojelly - Monday RNS ?

[timojelly] 01/7/2016 11:37

We await confirmation

[pugg1ey] 01/7/2016 11:34

price started going up after 10.30. must be a good sign for you guys?

[the shuffle man] 01/7/2016 11:28

COURT 17

Before MR JUSTICE ROTH

Friday, 1 July 2016

At half past 10

INTERIM HEARINGS LIST

PATENTS COURT

HP-2015-001175 Illumina Inc & ors v Premaitha Health Plc

HP-2015-000047 Same v Same

[blackss] 01/7/2016 11:19

What do we hope to hear today ?

[hjb1] 30/6/2016 16:25

hearing is tomorrow!

[gooosed] 30/6/2016 15:59

Anyone know if the hearing that was re-scheduled to this week has taken place yet ?

[blackss] 30/6/2016 11:17

Dont ask for an update....I tried that.

[timojelly] 30/6/2016 10:58

What the heck is going on?

[ngen yap] 28/6/2016 18:39

Some positive write up on social news within Premaitha website. Awaiting to hear update on legal case......obviously Brexit took centre stage!

[elrico] 28/6/2016 11:55

Wrong thread. Sorry, cant edit via mobile app.

[elrico] 28/6/2016 11:54

It seems I jumped the gun. I received an email yesterday suggesting my go figure order would arrived on July 4. They arrived 5 min after my moan about the delivery time.

[hjb1] 27/6/2016 22:40

FANTASTIC NEWS!!! GAME ON!!! PATENT KICKED OUT!!!!


US Supreme Court Denies Sequenom Petition to Review Patent Invalidation

Jun 27, 2016 | a GenomeWeb staff reporter
.






NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – The US Supreme Court has denied Sequenom's petition to review decisions by lower courts that invalidated a key patent it held related to noninvasive prenatal screening.

Sequenom petitioned the Supreme Court to review the invalidity ruling in part because of an opinion by Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn, who agreed in appeals that the patent should be found invalid because of a previous Supreme Court decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, but wrote that he was "bound by the sweeping language" of that decision. And, had it not been for that decision, he wrote, there was "no reason, in policy or statute, why this breakthrough invention should be deemed patent ineligible."

Sequenom's US Patent No. 6,258,540 had been at the center of a series of lawsuits that began in 2011 and involved Sequenom, Ariosa, and Natera. In 2013, the US District Court for the Northern District of California found the '540 patent invalid, a ruling that was upheld last June.

After Sequenom petitioned the Supreme Court to clarify language about patent eligibility, a diverse range of groups including pharmaceutical companies, the Coalition for 21st Century Medicine, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and various law professors and law associations, submitted more than 20 amicus briefs in support of Sequenom's petition.

Sequenom CEO Dirk van den Boom said in a statement issued today that the company is "disappointed that the Supreme Court denied our petition," and believes that "the Supreme Court missed an ideal opportunity to clarify patent eligibility criteria not only to protect the significant investments made by Sequenom but also by other innovative organizations to advance the standard of patient care and treatment."