Forgive me if I get any of the details wrong, I am not a lawyer, but the title of this post is my take on a judgement passed down in the patent infringement case PacBio brought against ONT.
To get your hands on the documentation, you need to register and log in to EDIS, click “Advanced Search”, do a search for “single molecule sequencing” and click the top hit.
My interpretation of the documentation is that the judge has massively limited the scope of the patents in question by expanding on the definition of “single molecule sequencing”. ONT argued that in the patents in question, “single molecule sequencing” referred only to “sequencing of a single molecule by template-dependent synthesis”, and the judge agreed with this definition.
All claims are then subsequently limited to template-dependent synthesis, which of course is NOT what Oxford Nanopore do.
The document then goes into an area that would make all biological ontologists rejoice – THEY TRY AND DEFINE THE TERM “SEQUENCE”. I can almost hear the voices shouting “I told you so!” coming out of Manchester and Cambridge as I write 😉