Collected by: Taiwan Lizhi ; Translated by: Wenyou; Reviewed by: Wen Kenni
A multinational company specializing in the development and production of genome sequencers filed a lawsuit against High Court of Hongkong last Friday, alleging that the gene sequencing test kits launched by BGI and its related companies infringe on the company’s registered patent in Hongkong. The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining on BGI from supplying and selling the infringing kits, destroying all its stock and paying compensation to the plaintiff. According to the information, the company has also filed lawsuits against BGI in many countries around the world and won a judgment of infringement in a US court this June.
According to the petition, the plaintiff is ILLUMINA CAMBRIDGE LIMITED, and the six defendants are MGI TECH CO.,LIMITED, BGI COMPLETE GENOMICS HONGKONG CO.,LIMITED, MGI INTERNATIONAL SALES CO LIMITED, BGI HONGKONG RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE CO.,LIMITED, BGI HONGKONG TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CO.,LIMITED and BGI HEALTH TECHNOLOGY (HONGKONG) CO.,LIMITED.
The Plaintiff is the UK division of ILLUMINA(an American biotechnology company)based in Granta Park, Cambridge, UK, a technology park for R&D of biopharmaceuticals. ILLUMINA is a global leader in the sequencing industry, with approximately 70% of the global sequencing market according to Genomeweb marketing investigation. This June, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that BGI had infringed on ILLUMINA’s patent on synthetic sequencing technology and chemical detection reagents, and enjoined BGI from launching infringing products in the U.S.
In addition to the U.S., ILLUMINA has also filed lawsuits against BGI in many countries around the world, including Germany, the U.K. and France, but not all of the lawsuits have been successful. In the United States, the Patent Office has ruled in favor of BGI in Munich of Germany, London of UK, and Stockholm of Sweden.And the patent infringement cases are still pending in Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland.
The Plaintiff requested an order declaring that the Defendant infringes the Hong Kong Standard Technology Patent (No. HK1253509) entitled “Improved Nucleotides for Polynucleotide Sequencing”.
The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction restraining the Defendant and any of its companies and employees from infringing, authorizing others to infringe, or copy similar designs of the Patent. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enjoin the Defendant from manufacturing, marketing, selling, importing, storing, supplying and marketing various high-throughput sequencing reagent kits involving the Patent.
The Defendant was required to withdraw any infringing advertised products within 7 days of the Order and to surrender the infringing products to be destroyed by Plaintiff within 14 days. The Defendant was also required to provide the Plaintiff with information about the parties to whom the infringing products had been sold and the profits made, and to compensate the Plaintiff for any loss suffered.
Sunrise Diagnostic Center,a subsidiary of BGI, has set up 16 “air film laboratories” at Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park gymnasium in Western District for testing, which is expected to be able to perform 130,000 single-tube tests per day, or more than 500,000 tests per day if five samples are mixed together. The center claims that the results will be available within 24 hours after the public submits their samples, and it is not yet known how the alleged infringement will affect the testing.
The scandal of Sunrise Diagnostic Center have been repeatedly revealed .The Apple Daily’s investigation has revealed that the directors of Sunrise Diagnostic Center’s board includes the director of referred laboratory,Shouen Hua,who involved in the 2012 DR Group beauty needle murder case, , who was also the director of the Asia Pacific Stem Cell Research Center, which was responsible for growing CIK cells at the time although he was not named as a defendant in the case. He was accused by the defense that his report on the risk of infection was inaccurate, with inconsistencies in the model and reagents, which he admitted at the time. He denied that he was the laboratory director several times in court, but only when the defense produced documents proving that he had applied for accreditation as the director did he change his mind.
[Case No. HCIP47/20]
Original article link: