European Patent Office (EPO) The appeal board has confirmed the revocationIlluminaTwo pieces of company involvedDNAPatents for sequencing technology. meanwhile, The panel also issued a preliminary rejection of a third patent held by the US maker of genetically engineered devices.

As mentioned above, EPOThe appeals board has confirmed the removal of the American biotechnology companyIlluminaThe two pieces involvedDNAPatents for sequencing technology, The numbers are respectivelyEP1451351andEP2338893. Both inventions are related to labeling nucleotides, And nucleotides areRNAandDNAThe basic components. especially, The above patent is published "Nucleotides with mobile labels and their application in polynucleotide sequencing methods" .

Next generation technology

2019years11month, EPORemoved from his patent familyEP1451351andEP2338893, The patent family covers labeled nucleotides. The two patents relate to next-generation sequencing technology. merely, Because there is a formal error, EPOA decision was made to withdraw.

itEP1451351In patent terms, The dissenting Branch reached the following conclusions during its initial review, That is, the claims in the main claim of the patent1, 6and10Do not conform to "European Patent convention" (EPC) The first123article2Requirement of paragraph. This relates to whether the content of the applicable modification is allowed. Although the appellantIlluminaThe company appealed, Says its patents do qualify as No123Article No2The provisions of paragraph, But opponents argue that the main claim claims contain additional objects.

EPOThe appeal board dismissed the appeal. In addition, IlluminaA request for assistance was also submitted, Trying to overcome the problem of additional objects. however, On the basis of "Rules of procedure of the Appeals Board" (RPBA) The first12article6paragraph, The Appeal Board did not accept the request for assistance in the relevant proceedings. The above provisions, The committee shall not "To accept requests that were not accepted in the first instance proceedings, FACTS, Objection or evidence" .

IlluminaThe appeal was rejected

itEP2338893patent-wise, IlluminaIt also raised objections to the derived opinions provided by the dissenting departments. The opposing department found that the patent did not complyEPCThe number of76article1Paragraph and paragraph123article2paragraph. althoughIlluminaConsider a claim in the master claim1Really agree withEPCThe first123article2The provisions of paragraph, But once again, opponents "Additional object" Was challenged on the grounds.

therefore, The appeal panel upheld the verdict of the first instance, Summary revocation of patent. therewith, The appellant again filed a request for assistance, But it was again rejected by the appeals board. In both cases, Decisions are made in writing. In accordance with the above decision, IlluminaSaid he would not attend the oral hearing after receiving preliminary comments.

In addition, EPOThe appeals board was also rightHoffmann EitletoIlluminaThe firstEP3147292A preliminary opinion was issued on a separate appeal against Patent No. This is related to "containing3'-O-Azide methyl nucleotide and usedDNASequenced nucleotide" Relate to. According to preliminary opinion, EP3147292The claims of Patent No. 2 contain additional objects, And lack of creativity.

The committee said, ifIlluminaWithin oneself2024years2month7No clarification of the relevant claims has been provided in its supplementary request within one month of the date, This may result in the patent being revoked.

ceaselessIllumina

lately, IlluminaLife seems to be a little hard. 2023years10month, EPOThe department of objection was droppedEP3363809Patent No, The patent relates to modified nucleotides for polynucleotide sequencing. IlluminaIt was requested that the case be referred to the Expanded Appeal Board, But the request was rejected by the appeals committee.

The reason for the rejection is the same as another case involving the same patent familyEP3587433Patent No (The patent relates to modified nucleotides) Cases similar to, The patent has since been revoked.

meanwhile, EPOThe various appeal technical committees were also revokedEP2119722, EP3438116andEP3363809Patent No. IlluminaThe latter two decisions have not yet been appealed, It seems to mean that these decisions are final. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wu Xian



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.