The patent battle between Natera, a cell-free DNA testing firm, and CareDx, a precision medication firm serving transplant sufferers, continues this week, with Natera now submitting two new patent infringement fits in opposition to CareDx.
Natera has accused CareDx of infringing two patents protecting Natera’s DNA testing expertise, in keeping with paperwork filed final Friday within the US District Court docket for the District of Delaware.
The Austin, Texas-based firm alleged that CareDx’s Allosure and AlloSeq merchandise infringe patent No. 10,655,180. The patent is expounded to Natera’s merchandise used to measure DNA in a pattern utilizing artificial items of DNA, together with amplification merchandise, that are produced utilizing artificial instruments akin to primers, in keeping with court docket paperwork.
“CareDx has made in depth use of Natera’s patented expertise, together with the expertise described and claimed within the ’180 patent,” in keeping with the criticism.
Natera additionally alleges in a separate case that CareDx’s AlloSure, AlloSeq, KidneyCare, and HeartCare merchandise infringe US Patent No. 11,111,544.
These are the most recent photographs fired in an ongoing battle between the 2 corporations. In March, a jury dominated that Natera owed $44.9 million in damages to CareDx. A jury dominated that Natera deliberately misled the transplant group about its Prospera Kidney Transplant Know-how by likening it to CareDx’s AlloSure take a look at; CareDx didn’t escape judgement within the ruling, with the jury ruling that CareDx engaged in two accounts of false promoting.
The battle dates again a number of years when South San Francisco-based CareDx initiated a lawsuit in opposition to Natera in 2019 for false promoting of its product and likening it to CareDx’s product. At their core, each Prospera and AlloSure are blood assessments that may assess the chance of rejection of a transplanted kidney.
In a information launch Tuesday, CareDx mentioned that it “believes all of the recycled patents asserted in opposition to CareDx are invalid and should not infringed.”
A lawyer for Natera didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark.
The circumstances are 1:22-cv-00641-CFC and 1:22-cv-00642-CFC within the District Court docket of Delaware.
0 Comments