tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post3574592380709128292..comments2024-03-03T18:49:34.382-05:00Comments on Omics! Omics!: Digging into the Illumina Lawsuit vs. Oxford NanoporeKeith Robisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04765318239070312590noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-85879320629993112422016-03-18T09:26:00.916-04:002016-03-18T09:26:00.916-04:00As a follow-up, it seems two claims have made it t...As a follow-up, it seems two claims have made it through the review:<br />http://www.natlawreview.com/article/oxford-nanopore-tech-v-univ-washington-final-written-decision-finding-displayed<br /><br />leaving claims 17 and 18 which I think are from this patent:<br />http://www.google.com/patents/US8673550<br /><br />which appears to be for an msp* pore in a bi-layer reading ionic current, and for any equivalent systems using an mspA mutant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-34583947904267823942016-03-01T14:23:58.839-05:002016-03-01T14:23:58.839-05:00"Here is an interesting posting on Oxford Nan..."Here is an interesting posting on Oxford Nanopore:"<br /><br />thank you samanta. we ve all heard a few things about you too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-2976806848774939882016-03-01T11:55:38.830-05:002016-03-01T11:55:38.830-05:00Here is an interesting posting on Oxford Nanopore:...Here is an interesting posting on Oxford Nanopore:<br />http://www.homolog.us/blogs/blog/2016/02/13/our-agbt16-forecast-oxford-nanopore-will-go-out-of-business-by-2017/<br />Looks to me, judging by the inline Glassdoor comments, that even if they beat off Illumina, their management will ensure their downfall. Furthermore, the Glassdoor comments very much accord with what I've heard on the grapevine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-53062648623147887862016-02-29T16:14:32.863-05:002016-02-29T16:14:32.863-05:00"Illumina will win the case, force Oxford to ..."Illumina will win the case, force Oxford to pay a ridiculous license fee, crush Oxfords valuation, and pick them up at a fire sale price."<br /><br />Possibly, but the said patents, if applicable, only have jurisdiction in the US. As most of Oxfords business seems to be non-us it seems hard to belive that royalty in the US would "crush" a valuation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-25184370807592229532016-02-29T11:11:26.972-05:002016-02-29T11:11:26.972-05:00Having been in the field, and knowing well the sta...Having been in the field, and knowing well the status of the protein pore research (there hasn't been another pore published or patented, capable of resolving 5-6 bases since mspA), here are two possibilities:<br />- Illumina will win the case, force Oxford to pay a ridiculous license fee, crush Oxfords valuation, and pick them up at a fire sale price.<br />- Oxford moves the courts to set new precedent over what constitutes 'identical' proteins, and what is patentable about proteins. The Washington and Alabama applications cover a lot of ground in capturing the msp pore,so this may be the less likely option.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-47181199626463611062016-02-26T09:19:28.845-05:002016-02-26T09:19:28.845-05:00"Oxford inquired about licensing the patents ..."Oxford inquired about licensing the patents and had nice things to say about Akeson's Gundlach's work Of course they did! It's bizarre to suggest that asking to rent something is evidence that you are planning to steal it, but that is the logic"<br /><br />that's not logic, that's stupidity. <br /><br />simply explained as an defensive, conservative patent strategy covering all aspects of an IP area to give commercial security. perfectly reasonable and well established IP strategy. if a company is not doing this they either don't have the funds or they are incompetent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-74992862194923988482016-02-26T07:30:41.108-05:002016-02-26T07:30:41.108-05:00I've only seen one other article that notices ...I've only seen one other article that notices that ILMN had a board observer seat at ONT at the time they secretly licensed the patents in question...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-91880433759649879422016-02-26T04:30:43.808-05:002016-02-26T04:30:43.808-05:00"more likely than not", that's the b..."more likely than not", that's the basis of their complaint to the trade commission.<br /><br />the purpose of the action could be simply to provide an argument to ban the importation of the devices, disupting supply, stalling and buying time until they can think what to do next. probably not because of the rumoured IPO or the minION but because of the promethion as a directly competitive device to their suite.<br /><br />when a company is so dominant it can sell expensive instruments and then dictate what can be sequenced surely that is a problem for users.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36768584.post-48133022135881495822016-02-26T03:19:23.686-05:002016-02-26T03:19:23.686-05:00It's clear that the ISIS patent filed two year...<br />It's clear that the ISIS patent filed two years before the U. Wash patent cites MSpA's use for sequencing. <br /><br />How is identity measured? Changing one amino acid eg exchanging a cysteine for a lysine, would change the architecture of a pore massively. So amino acid sequence would be in the range claimed (or would it, is 99.6% covered?) by the physical appearance would be below the range depending on how a numerical comparison can be made.<br /><br />Of course this all depends on whether Oxford are using MSpA. They've been fully aware of FTO for some years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com