Enzo Biochem Reports Jury Declares Life Technologies Infringed Company Patents And Awards Enzo $48.6 Million

Enzo Biochem Inc. (NYSE:ENZ) reported yesterday that the jury in the Enzo action entitled Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al. vs. Applera Corp. and Tropix Inc. in New Haven, CT Civil Action No. 3:04cv929 (JBA), has rendered its verdict that Applera Corp., now Life Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:LIFE), infringed Enzo’s patents covering pioneering technologies relating to compounds used in DNA sequencing systems to read the genetic code. The jury awarded $48.6 million in direct infringement penalties. In addition, a pre-judgment (interest) award will be awarded by the Court. Attorneys for Enzo estimate that the addition of the pre-judgment award should add additional recoveries of up to tens of millions of dollars. The jury also found that Life Technologies’ sequencing instruments induced its customers to infringe Enzo’s patent No. 5,449,767. The sales of such instruments are estimated to be $770 million. Enzo plans to seek damages based on the jury decision that the sale of Life Technologies’ sequencing instruments induced infringement of Enzo patents. Yale University was also a plaintiff.

Enzo expects that today’s decision will have a positive impact on the resolution of pending actions that Enzo brought in the U.S. Southern District Court in New York City, which involve additional defendants, patents and contract issues. Defendants in those suits include Amersham PLC, Amersham Biosciences, Roche Diagnostics, PerkinElmer, Inc., PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc, Molecular Probes, Inc.(now owned by Life Technologies), Orchid Cellmark, Inc. (now owned by Laboratory Corporation of America) and Affymetrix, Inc.

“We are obviously very gratified and pleased with the jury’s decision,” said Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D., Chairman and CEO of Enzo. “The technologies subject to the litigation helped pave the way for major developments in important areas in biological science and medicine. The case has taken eight years, but we have finally prevailed. It is a vindication of the investments we have made in developing and protecting our intellectual property.”

1 2 3 Next › Last »