@Dodge, Thanks. Here is the company's respone:
disclosed in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 26, 2012, on June 6, 2012, a complaint for patent infringement was filed against the Company by Smartwater, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in an action entitled Smartwater, Ltd. v. Applied DNA Sciences, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-11009-PBS. The complaint alleged that the Company infringed one or more claims under two of plaintiff's patents by selling or offering for sale, manufacturing and using certain of the Company's products, by inducing others to infringe and by contributing to infringement by others. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief with respect to the patents as well as awards of damages and attorneys' fees. The Company had not been served with the complaint and on August 24, 2012 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint and refiled a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 12-CV-61660-Zioch/Otazo-Reyes. On August 30, 2012, plaintiff served the Company with the complaint. The refiled complaint seeks injunctive relief with respect to one of the patents as well as awards of damages and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that none of its products infringed any claims under either of plaintiff's patents and moreover notes that one of plaintiff's patents has expired. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes they are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.
As is stands today, this is only approriate as a layer of technology, but should not be couned on by itself, especially with the basic yes/no handheld detector they are purportedly using. This is an expensive and time consuming method of detecting counterfeits, and should be used as a final step, when validation by a court of law is required. Otherwise a more robust taggant & reader system should be used.
Actually, what you say in your article is "A hand-held scanner can quickly detect the presence of the DNA".
That is my point of contention. You do not mention fluorophores at all in the article, which is what most people will read. I am also now aware that ADNAS is being sued for patent/IP violation by another DNA company.
Vis-a-vis fluorohpres, they can be easily sourced online and introduced to a variety of materials, so creating a situation where numerous false positives are generated is very simple for the counterfeiters. I have seen this happen in my own supply chain when we have attempted to introduce basic security that depends on a simple yes/no detector.
@DodgeJ I did write that the detection element was a fluorophore. Applied did not mislead in any way. I also mentioned that the forensic identification was still at the lab level. I also indicated that the cost for authentication in a few years was going to be significantly less than it is today and that tabletop equipment would access the cloud for the remote authentication. Please re-read my earlier response to you. Please do not vilify the company by saying they may have mislead me. If anything, it was a bad choice of wording on my part. I am sorry if I mislead you. They did not.
This type of technology is not ground breaking. Companies have been using moelcular markers and otehr types of chemical additions to products for years. The drawback has always been, and continues to be, the fact that you must send them back to a lab for testing. It is a great layer of security, but due to shipping costs, test costs, and the need-to-know desire form industry, it will remain as a very good final authentciation feature.
I think you have been slightly misled by ADNAS. What they are detecting, it seems, is the fluorophores themeselves, or other types of light responding material that they add with the DNA. If the scanner was simply detecteting the presence of DNA, it would respond to anything that had DNA in it - blood, skin, etc. They seem to be opearting in a very gray area of truth in their marketing and advertising. The key to their system (the field detection portion anyway), seems to be the addition of another marker or chemical, which they probably don't even manufacture themselves.
Posted on PC Pro 7/2/12 - "The majority of fake components sold into the electronics and technology industries are not manufactured in backstreet factories in Asia, but are reused parts that have been cleaned up".
Interesting clip Rich!!!At least before the whole planet is counterfeited, Douglas' article has just assured that there's a ground breaking anti-counterfeiting strategy of the future. I think it's great. Just hope the cost will not be a problem?
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.