ChromaVision files suit against Applied Imaging Corp

ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc has filed suit against Applied Imaging Corporation, accusing Applied Imaging’s ARIOL SL-50 system of infringing three ChromaVision patents.

ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc, a provider of automated cell-imaging systems, has filed suit for patent infringement against Santa Clara-based Applied Imaging Corporation.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, accuses Applied Imaging’s ARIOL SL-50 system of infringing three ChromaVision patents relating to image analysis and automated microscopy.

ChromaVision has asked the court for damages and an injunction barring Applied Imaging from making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale any device that infringes ChromaVision patented technology.

‘ChromaVision has invested significant resources in research and development to create new inventions related to automated microscopy, including the proprietary ACIS digital microscope system,’ said Jose de la Torre-Bueno, PhD, ChromaVision’s Vice President of Research and Development.

‘Those inventions and the intellectual property protecting those inventions are the cornerstone of our business. ChromaVision has an obligation to its shareholders to protect that property from infringers.’

Commenting on the suit, Carl Hull, Applied Imaging’s Chief Executive Officer said, ‘We find it interesting that ChromaVision has chosen to file and publicly announce a lawsuit against the Company on patents that were issued two to three years ago with no prior discussion with us of any issues or concerns that they might have. We will respond directly and vigorously to the allegations contained in this surprise attack in a court of law.’

‘We have been in the business of providing advanced image analysis solutions to thousands of clinical users worldwide for the better part of two decades. Our record of innovation in this field is clear, and we feel comfortable that our understanding of that technology and the extensive prior art that exists in the field will serve us well in mounting a successful defence of the Company’s position in this matter,’ concluded Hull.