Skip to main content
Premium Trial:

Request an Annual Quote

Ravgen Wins $273M Award in Patent Infringement Suit Against Labcorp

NEW YORK — Prenatal testing firm Ravgen has been awarded nearly $273 million in damages in its patent-infringement suit against Laboratory Corporation of America, the law firm representing Ravgen confirmed this week.

A Labcorp spokesperson said that the company is considering appealing the ruling.

In late 2020, Ravgen sued Labcorp in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas Waco Division for allegedly infringing US Patent Nos. 7,727,720 and 7,332,277, both titled "Methods for Detection of Genetic Disorders." The intellectual property covers methods that prevent cell lysis in a sample, which increases the fraction of cell-free DNA that can be analyzed, and list Ravgen Founder and CEO Ravinder Dhallan as the sole inventor.

In its suit, Ravgen specifically cited Labcorp's MaterniT21 Plus test, MaterniT Genome test, InformaSeq Non-invasive Prenatal Test and the Resolution ctDx Lung Assay as infringing the patents.

According to law firm Desmarais, a jury concluded last week that Labcorp had infringed the IP and awarded Ravgen $272.5 million in damages.

"The verdict demonstrates the originality of Ravgen's patent, which was foundational for the creation of non-invasive prenatal genetic testing," John Desmarais, founding partner of Desmarais and Ravgen's lead counsel in the litigation, said in a statement. "The verdict is a critical step in Ravgen receiving credit for its significant contribution to genetic testing technology."

A spokesperson for Labcorp said that the company views Ravgen's claims of infringement as without merit and is reviewing options for appeal. The spokesperson also noted that Labcorp has challenged the validity of the Ravgen patents with the US Patent and Trademark Office, with decisions expected before the end of this year.

Columbia, Maryland-based Ravgen has also filed suits against Illumina, Roche, Natera, Quest Diagnostics, Myriad Genetics, and Progenity for allegedly infringing its patents. It previously sued PerkinElmer for infringement, but that case was later dismissed with each company assuming its own costs and fees.