Rulings in Enzo Biochem Cases Precede Settlements
In the Amersham suit, the court dismissed Enzo’s patent infringement claims in 2012. Enzo cases involving research market products remain pending against Affymetrix and PerkinElmer. In the PerkinElmer case, the court in October partially granted PerkinElmer’s motion for summary judgement, denying Enzo’s claims of fraudulent inducement and tortious interference. A trial is scheduled for the spring. Enzo is also a defendant in a 2004 case involving research market products brought by Roche Diagnostics.
New York, NY 10/22/13; New York, NY 11/27/13; New York, NY 12/6/13; New York, NY 12/27/13—The District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled in two suits brought by life science consumables firm Enzo Biochem. In October, the court granted Amersham’s motion for summary judgment, denying Enzo’s claims of fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, unfair competition and tortious interference. Enzo’s 2002 suit against Amersham and co-defendants, including PerkinElmer, Sigma-Aldrich, Molecular Probes (Life Technologies) and Orchid Biosciences (Beckman Coulter), related to a 1995 distribution agreement. In late November, the parties settled. In another case, in December, the same court granted Orchid and Molecular Probes’ summary judgment, denying Enzo’s claims of patent infringement of US Patent No. 5,241,060 (Base Moiety–labeled Detectable Nucleatide), tortious interference and unfair competition. The 2003 case involved a 1999 distribution agreement between PerkinElmer and sub-distributors Molecular Probes and Orchid. On December 27, the court received a letter stating that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement.
