Sun, Nov 23, 2014, 1:20 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Illumina Inc. Message Board

  • borisbear64 borisbear64 Jul 14, 2011 10:44 AM Flag

    Court Mediation Date set..warning!!

    07/13/2011 85 ORDER Setting Mediation Conferences: mediation conferences with
    Judge Thynge shall proceed as follows: Monday, August 29, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to
    1:30 p.m. Helicos and Life Technologies ONLY. Monday, August 29, 2011 beginning
    at 1:30 p.m. Helicos and Illumina ONLY. Tuesday, August 30, 2011 beginning at
    10:00 a.m. Helicos and Pacific Biosciences ONLY. See Order for details. Signed
    by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 7/13/2011. (cak) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

    If they don't reach an agreement then on we go to jury trial...remember who you are up against..Helicos may be the David to Ilumina's Goliath for mkt cap but it is the other way around for the scientists on board... and this court case is about the science (just check out the credentials of those onboard and read the court docs presented so far)..remember Helicos are suing Ilumina for basing both new platforms on their patents... if Helicos wins the payout could be enormous. You have been warned.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I think it is completely central !

    • not central to the court case....read the docs

      typical you guys are focusing on the side dishes meanwhile your main course is starting to get cold and rot

    • It all boils down to this:

      Helicos sued Life, PacBio and Illumina because their position has been eroded in the marketplace due to many factors with SALES being #1. They saw no other avenue besides litigation to salvage their position. Just my two cents.

    • The technical complexity of these claims and counter-claims quickly overwhelms my limited understanding. But the court is bound to ask why Helicos waited so long to file these suits. ILMN's genome analyzer has been out for more than 2 years now. And why has Helicos been so unsuccessful at generating a commercial product, if its patents were so seminal?

    • Now that your slip sliding away , thought you all needed a timely little reminder of some more woes (of a legal kind) you have coming your way.

      • 1 Reply to borisbear64
      • Depositions have been noticed:

        09/19/2011 Pro Hac Vice Attorney Douglas M. Kline,Sheryl Garko,Brian A. Fairchild,Blake B. Greene,James D. Clements,Daniel M. Forman for Helicos Biosciences Corporation added for electronic noticing. (dmp, ) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

        09/19/2011 111 NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Nonparty Duncan Greenhalgh's Responses snd Objections to Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.'s Third Party Subpoena; (2) Nonparty Timothy D. Harris's Responses and Objections to Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.'s Third Party Subpoena; (3) Nonparty Stanley N. Lapidus's Responses and Objections to Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.'s Third Party Subpoena; (4) Nonparty Philip Richard Buzby's Responses and Objections to Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.'s Third Party Subpoena by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Brauerman, Stephen) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

        09/20/2011 112 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Life Technologies Corporation (First Notice) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 3, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 113 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Life Technologies Corporation (Second Notice) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 4, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 114 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (First Notice) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 26, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 115 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (Second Notice) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 27, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 116 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Illumina, Inc. (First Notice), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 18, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 117 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Illumina, Inc. (Second Notice), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 19, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 118 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Illumina, Inc. (Third Notice), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 20, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 119 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Illumina, Inc. (Fourth Notice), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 24, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/20/2011 120 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Defendant Illumina, Inc. (Fifth Notice), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on October 25, 2011 by Helicos Biosciences Corporation.(Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

        09/21/2011 121 ORDER Setting Teleconference (Plaintiff's counsel to initiate the call): A Telephone Conference is set for 9/26/2011 at 10:30 AM before Judge Mary Pat Thynge to address a discovery issue. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 9/21/2011. (cak) (Entered: 09/21/2011)

    • ((7,169,560)Illumina's Reponse part 2
      20. On August 8, 2006, just three weeks after Helicos submitted its office action
      response, through its attorneys at Graham Watt & Co LLP, including Nicholas A. Kirkham,
      Helicos filed an opposition to EP 1105529 in the European Patent Office. EP 1105529 was at
      the time assigned to Solexa Ltd., a predecessor-in-interest to an Illumina affiliate.
      21. In that opposition, Helicos argued that EP 1105529 should be rejected for lack of
      novelty in view ofRabani. Helicos stated, Rabani "provides an exhaustive disclosure of
      molecular imaging largely based on single molecule techniques ... [it] clearly discloses that
      single molecules are examined individually."
      22. Rabani discloses "concentration modulated control ofthe kinetics of
      polymerization processivity, which is used to facilitate direct observation of successive addition
      of individual (labeled) nucleotides, with controlled unlabeling." W096/27025 at 36.
      23. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claim 1 ofthe '560 patent is invalid in view of
      Rabani, ifclaim 1 were construed to cover Illumina's products. W096/27025 at 6,21,36
      (anticipates step (a)); id. at 6 (anticipates step (b)); id. at 6-7 (anticipates steps (c), (d) and (e)).
      24. Pursuant to 35 U.S.c. § 102(b), claim 12 of the '560 patent is invalid in view of
      Rabani, including without limitation the following disclosures, if claim 12 were construed to
      cover Illumina's products: W096127025 at 6, 21, 36 (anticipates step (a)); id. at 6-7,23-24,40.
      42 (anticipates step (b)).
      25. Upon information and belief, Helicos knew of the pertinence of the Rabani
      reference when it submitted its July 17, 2006 office action response and amendment, but it failed
      to bring this to the attention of the U.S. patent examiner.
      26. The claims of the '560 patent were allowed through inadequate disclosure of key
      material prior art, particularly with respect to the Rabani reference. The' 560 patent would not
      have issued had the inadequate disclosure not occurred.

    • (7,169,560)Illumina Response Pt.1
      13. Illumina realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all of
      the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 12 ofthese Counterclaims.
      14. The '560 patent entitled, "Short Cycle Methods for Sequencing Polynucleotides,"
      issued January 30,2007.
      15. Claim 1 of the '560 patent claims, "(a) exposing a nucleic acid template
      hybridized to a primer to (i) a polymerase capable of catalyzing nucleotide addition to said primer, and (ii) a labeled nucleotide that is not a chain terminating nucleotide, under reaction
      conditions and for a time such that on average only one nucleotide is added to said primer by
      said polymerase to produce an extended primer incorporating said labeled nucleotide; (b)
      identifying said single labeled nucleotide incorporated in step (a); (c) neutralizing label in said single labeled nucleotide incorporated in step (a); (d) repeating steps (a), (b) and (c) at least once;
      and ( e) determining a sequence of said template based upon the order of incorporation of said labeled nucleotides."
      16. Claim 12 of the '560 patent claims, "(a) exposing simultaneously plural single
      molecule nucleic acid templates immobilized on a surface, each of which is hybridized to a
      primer, to (i) a polymerase capable of catalyzing nucleotide addition to said primers hybridizedto said templates, and (ii) an optically detectable labeled nucleotide that is not a chain terminating nucleotide, under reaction conditions and for a time such that only one nucleotide is added to each said primer by said polymerase to produce plural extended primers incorporating
      said labeled nucleotide; and (b) optically identifying which of said templates on said surface
      incorporated said single labeled nucleotide in step (a)."
      17. Upon information and belief, at least as early as November 2004, Helicos,
      through its attorneys at Proskauer Rose LLP, including but not limited to Christopher H. Chung,
      was aware ofW096/27025 to Rabani ("Rabani").
      18. On July 17, 2006, in connection with the prosecution of the '560 patent, Helicos,
      through its attorneys at Goodwin Procter LLP, including Duncan A. Greenhalgh, submitted a
      response to a prior office action. In that response, Helicos amended claim 1 of the' 560 patent to
      state: "a labeled nucleotide . .. under reaction conditions for a time such that on average only one
      nucleotide is added to said primer by said polymerase .... "
      19. Helicos argued that with this amendment the claim should not be rejected over the
      prior art because the cited references did not disclose techniques directed toward "kinetically
      controlling the number ofnucleotides that are added to the primer per base addition cycle."

    • bump..hows your ILMN stock today ?... Hey dont forget ..more pain to come.. you have a date in court acoming too.

    • LONG way from a jury trial my friend. Case is set for a two week jury trial which starts on 9-10-2012. Paper and electronic discovery, depositions, claims construction, Motions for Summary Judgment, Motions in Limine....etc are only part of what has to take place before the parties try this case. Besides, the judge ORDERED that mediation take place.

 
ILMN
185.83-0.43(-0.23%)Nov 21 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Exa Corporation
NasdaqGMFri, Nov 21, 2014 3:59 PM EST
GameStop Corp.
NYSEFri, Nov 21, 2014 4:04 PM EST