GE Healthcare accused of microscope patent infringement

A US company has filed a lawsuit against global healthcare company GE Healthcare , alleging it has infringed its patented microscope technology.

The company, Texas-based Super Resolution Technologies (SRT), claims GE’s own microscope system infringes its patent.

The patent, US no 8,110,405 is called “Fluorescent Nanoscopy Method” and was issued in February last year.

According to the patent’s specifications it enables an analysis of an object dyed with fluorescent colouring through a microscope.

“The method is carried out with a microscope having an optical system for visualising and projecting a sample image to a video camera which records and digitises images of individual fluorescence molecules and nanoparticles,” the specification says.

But SRT claims GE “sells, offers to sell, and uses” a super-resolution microscope system, referred to as OMX, which “directly infringes” at least one claim of the patent.

In a complaint, filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on October 28, SRT says it “owns all rights, title, and interest in the ’405 patent, including all rights to recover damages for infringement.”

The complaint adds that GE has demonstrated the method, referred to as Monet imaging, for customers and potential customers, including at the Emory Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta in June this year, and has sold it to others.

“GE has sold and/or is selling OMX systems to other customers throughout the US and has instructed and/or is instructing its customers to use OMX systems to perform Monet imaging.

“GE therefore indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by others,” the complaint says.

According to William Baton, partner at Saul Ewing LLP in New Jersey, while GE’s alleged selling of the product and methods would have some impact on the infringement case, it would certainly be significant when determining potential damages.

In the complaint, SRT also adds that, in March this year, GE’s managing director Yves Dubaquie requested information on the technology and engaged in a “series of correspondence” with one of the inventors.

“GE, via an email to Dubaquie, had notice of the ’405 patent, which it confirmed it reviewed,” the complaint says, adding that GE’s prior notice makes its infringement wilful.

However, Baton said: “These allegations are quite vague in the complaint and do not necessarily increase the likelihood of infringement.

“It is possible that GE inquired about the plaintiff’s patent because it wanted to confirm that GE did not infringe it, or perhaps GE inquired about the plaintiff’s patent to determine whether it described a unique non-infringing improvement over its own technology, which GE might consider purchasing or licensing from the plaintiff.”

SRT is seeking a permanent injunction preventing GE from infringing the patent along with damages and court costs.