A Diagnostics & Imaging Week

Lifestream Technologies (Post Falls, Idaho), a supplier of cholesterol monitors, said it has filed a petition for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. As a "debtor in possession," the company remains in possession of its assets and properties, and continues to operate its business pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In connection with the bankruptcy filing, on Nov. 27 the company entered into an asset purchase agreement with Polymer Technology Systems (PTS; Indianapolis) to sell substantially all of its assets for $750,000, subject to higher and better offers.

To consummate the sale, the company filed a motion pursuant to Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code to seek court approval for sale of the assets referred to above. As its bankruptcy pleadings detail, based on preliminary indications, the company expects that after the sale it is unlikely that any assets will remain for distribution to the common shareholders.

In other legalities:

Enzo Biochem (New York) reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied permission for an immediate interlocutory appeal, thereby allowing Enzo's patent infringement lawsuit in Connecticut Federal District Court to go forward against Applera (Norwalk, Connecticut) and its Tropix subsidiary.

Enzo said the CAFC denied petitions requesting appeal from the Markman rulings issued by the Connecticut Court on Oct. 12, 2006, construing claim terms in six Enzo patents asserted against Applera and Tropix, thus allowing Enzo's infringement case to go forward.

The alleged infringing products include Applera's Applied Biosystems' DNA sequencing products and systems as well as services. The patents in suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,328,824, 5,449,767, 5,476,928, 4,711,955, 5,082,830, and 4,994,373, which relate generally to methods and materials for detecting nucleic acid sequences.

The suit was originally filed in 2004.

According to Enzo's counsel, the Markman decision, on which the denied petitions for appeal were based, adopted substantially all of Enzo's constructions of key patent claim terms.

Enzo Biochem is engaged in the R&D and manufacture of products based on molecular biology and genetic engineering techniques, and in providing diagnostic services to the medical community.

The company's labeling and detection products for gene sequencing and genetic analysis are sold to the life sciences market.

No Comments