Gene Sequencing Giant Tries To Use Patents To Block Rising Star's Pocket-Sized Unit From US

from the anti-innovation dept

Last year, Techdirt wrote about how one of the most significant breakthroughs in the field of genomics is already embroiled in a nasty patent battle. But it's not just the fundamental techniques in this field that are being held back by selfish attempts to "own" key technologies. An article in the MIT Technology Review reports that the dominant manufacturer of DNA sequencing machines, Illumina, is trying to use patents to throttle an upstart rival:

Illumina said today it would try to block commercial sales of a disruptive new DNA sequencing instrument developed by a high-flying British rival, Oxford Nanopore.

In a patent lawsuit [pdf] and a separate complaint [pdf] with the U.S. International Trade Commission, Illumina said the British company's cutting-edge DNA sequencing devices contain stolen ideas and should be stopped at the docks.
Oxford Nanopore denies that it is infringing on any patent that Illumina controls, but needs to be able to prove that not just once, but twice. As well as suing in the courts, Illumina is trying to use the International Trade Commission (ITC) loophole that Techdirt has been warning about for many years now. The ITC does not award damages, but can impose injunctions that block the import of items it deems infringing. And that's precisely what Illumina wants, in order to stop the British Oxford Nanopore from challenging it in the US with its new technology, which offers important advantages over Illumina's systems:
Illumina's refrigerator-sized instruments are fast and accurate (see "Why Illumina Is Number One"). But because it works differently, Oxford's MinION, as the device is called, is small enough to be portable (it's about the size of a cell phone) and reads out very long stretches of DNA.

Although it's slower and less accurate than Illumina's instruments, nanopore technology threatens to become a competitor as scientists find entirely new applications for it like sequencing Ebola viruses and diagnosing patients from a makeshift lab in Guinea.
According to the MIT Technology Review article, which gives more details on how the nanopore technology works, more than a thousand teams are already using Oxford Nanopore's pocked-sized sequencing unit. It offers capabilities that Illumina not only cannot match but is unlikely to match any time soon:
In asking U.S. trade officials to investigate Oxford and possibly bar imports of the MinION to the U.S., Illumina could anger researchers, since no comparable technology is available. Illumina has never announced plans to sell a nanopore product of its own.
So, rather than competing by launching its own equivalent product, a big, successful company that dominates a market is trying to use legal actions to squash an exciting new technology before it becomes a serious threat. In other words, yet another case of patents being used not to innovate, for the benefit of the public, but to stifle innovation, solely for the benefit of the current market leader.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+



Filed Under: dna sequencing, genomics, injunction, itc, itc loophole, patents
Companies: illumnia, oxford nanopore


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 1:35am

    So it is true, Minions seek out evil.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Beech, 10 Mar 2016 @ 2:07am

    Silly

    "In asking U.S. trade officials to investigate Oxford and possibly bar imports of the MinION to the U.S., Illumina could anger researchers, since no comparable technology is available."

    Please, if Illumina gets all the competition blocked they don't need to care who they anger, because they're the only game in town...which is exactly what they want.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 2:41am

    Heeyyy... That just 2 letters away from a major conspiracy theory. I'll go look for my tinfoil hat now. :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 2:50am

    "No Fair! They actually build stuff that customers want! ITC - Do your job and protect our market share!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 3:47am

    I'm thinking here. Suppose they succeed in blocking everything in the US. Not only this useful equipment but everything American companies (or not) ever have some dominance in the US. See where I('m getting at? It won't take long before the US becomes the new stone age representative comparing to other countries. Of course, short term profits are a certainty though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ColinCowpat (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 5:23am

    All the more curious

    ... as Illumina was a fairly large shareholder of Oxford Nanopore until fairly recently

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:03am

      Re: All the more curious

      Also, I'm missing the part of the story where they discussed licensing the patent and ON decided that the patent wasn't applicable, and so the two went to court to contest the applicability of the patent.

      How did it skip this step and move right into blocking sales and distribution of a product? Illumina obviously knew how the product worked right from the initial development phases. The product is already in use; why are they rent seeking after the fact instead of during the development and production process, since they were involved there?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tony Adams (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 6:17am

    This is interesting...

    The response by Oxford Nanopore lawyers to the ITC

    https://twitter.com/Erika_Check/status/707551785859178498

    Tony.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:08am

      Re: This is interesting...

      That lines up perfectly with my suspicions above; actions appear to have been taken by Illumina which are contrary to the best interests of the shareholders, based on insider information. This might start looking very bad for them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 6:24am

    Ahhh, the corporate American way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 10 Mar 2016 @ 6:47am

    Not fair

    Please understand that Illumina would love to compete and build a smaller more capable device able to make everyone happy and a less expensive rate. But they can't compete because of fairness. Illumina didn't file a patent for a smaller version of their device. But the MinION did create a patent for a small product. So the Illumina would be infringing on MinION patents. Which would not be fair.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2016 @ 10:01am

      Re: Not fair

      "Please understand that Illumina would love to compete and build a smaller more capable device able to make everyone happy and a less expensive rate. But they can't compete because of fairness. Illumina didn't file a patent for a smaller version of their device. But the MinION did create a patent for a small product. So the Illumina would be infringing on MinION patents. Which would not be fair."

      This is nonsense.

      You don't patent the size of the machine. You patent how it works. The two machines are orthognal technologies, and operate completely differently.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 1:02pm

    The problem in a nutshell

    contain stolen ideas


    Um - yeah. People seem to think you can own ideas, and patent attorneys encourage such thinking as they get paid regardless of how your application goes. Who knows? Maybe the USPTO rubber stamp will work in your favor?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.