DNA Tagging Company Seeks Declaration of Non-Infringement for Patents


Plaintiffs Qiagen Hamburg GMBH and Qiagen, LLC (collectively, Qiagen) filed suit against Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. on Wednesday in the District of Delaware. The action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement is an attempt to settle a dispute between the parties over the alleged infringement of the defendant’s patented technology, which the plaintiff denies.

Qiagen, according to its court filing, is a company that “provides sampling and assay products for a variety of molecular biology applications.” The plaintiff has a product called the QIAcuity Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) system. PCR amplifies a particular strand of DNA and tags it with a fluorescent marker, which allows for the detection and measurement of very small initial concentrations of DNA. This has significant implications in both medicine and research.

Like the plaintiff, the defendant purportedly “also manufactures a variety of biochemical and biomedical research and diagnostic tools.” In mid 2021, the complaint says, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the aforementioned PCR system they owned infringed on at least three patents that Bio-Rad held since they believed the system used “Bio-Rad’s patented technology without authorization.” They supplemented this letter nine months later by reasserting the alleged infringement and further accusing the defendant of infringing on three additional patents.

The two companies have attempted to settle their dispute outside of court, but Qiagen explains that they believe any further attempts would be futile. Qiagen contends that it “has not infringed and does not infringe, induce infringement, or contribute to the infringement of any valid or enforceable claim” of any of the patents-in-suit.

The complaint cites six separate claims for non-infringement. Qiagen is seeking six separate judgments of non-infringement for each of the patents-in-suit, and any other relief which the Court deems the plaintiff to be entitled to.

The plaintiff is represented by Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A. and Winston & Strawn LLP.