Jamie T. Wiz
8 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
8 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.