Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Incyte (INCY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dalroi who wrote (1666)	1/25/2001 7:15:06 AM
From: nigel bates	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3202

No settlement yet, but progress report... Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Incyte Genomics, Inc. (Nasdaq: INCY - news), announced today that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted a victory to Incyte in issuing a ruling limiting the scope of the patent claims of Affymetrix, Inc. (Nasdaq: AFFX - news). The involved patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,744,305 (the '305 patent), 5,445,934 (the '934 patent), and 5,800,992 (the '992 patent). In its pleadings before the Court, Affymetrix had asserted that its patents cover the entire field of DNA arrays regardless of the method of manufacture. The Court rejected those arguments, limiting the scope of the claims to arrays where light or another energy source is used to activate a specific region of an array for formation of a polymer. Based on this claim interpretation, Incyte contends that other methods of manufacture, such as those employed by Incyte, fall outside the scope of the claim. In its decision or ``Markman'' ruling, the Court describes how the claims in a patent should be interpreted. Claim interpretation is an important step in determining whether or not a patent has been infringed. As the Court emphasized in its decision, in addition to the limitation on the scope of its claims imposed yesterday by the Court, Affymetrix must face challenges of invalidity separately, at trial, if necessary. Among the various terms in the Affymetrix patents that the Court defined today, the Court interpreted the terms ``predefined region'' in the '305 patent and ``discrete, known region'' in the '934 patent as ``identified localized areas on a surface which are ... activated for formation of a polymer, where the activation is accomplished through exposure of the localized area to an energy source ... '' The Court rejected Affymetrix' argument for a much broader interpretation which required only physically distinguishable and known regions. ``The Court's ruling is a victory, not only for Incyte, but for the entire medical research community,'' commented Lee Bendekgey, General Counsel of Incyte. ``Affymetrix has continually asserted that it owns the field of DNA arrays regardless of the method of manufacture. The ruling significantly scales back the scope of Affymetrix' claims. Incyte believes that the Court's interpretation of the terms 'predefined region' and 'discrete, known region' limits the scope of Affymetrix' claims to cover arrays, such as those Affymetrix manufactures itself using photolithography, where light or another energy source is used to activate a specific region on an array for formation of a polymer in that specific region. Incyte contends that this definition excludes application of those claims to printed ('spotted') arrays like Incyte's, where cDNA probes are mechanically printed on the chip without use of any energy source to activate specific regions on the array.'' With respect to the '992 patent, the Court ruled that ``a mixture of labeled nucleic acid from the two cell types'' requires that the mixture of labeled nucleic acids be obtained ``from the two cell types.'' ``The Court agree[d] with Incyte to the extent that this phrase must be limited to nucleic acid samples collected from the two cell types. That is, cDNA, because it is a nucleic acid made in a reaction outside the cell, is not covered by the plain words of the claim.'' The mixture that Incyte applies to its arrays consists of cDNA and, for that reason, this ruling should provide a clear basis for a ruling of noninfringement of this claim. ``We have maintained from the start that these claims have no merit,'' added Mr. Bendekgey, ``and we are confident that the District Court ruling will help to bring these matters to a successful conclusion for Incyte.''