Yang
88 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
88 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear jointly moved to terminate multiple IPRs after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering patent 9,289,016. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without deciding the merits.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request relies on discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates settled an IPR against BirchTech, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for two petitioners while keeping the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis' nasal benzodiazepine formulation patent are obvious over Gwozdz, Meezan ’962 and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies settled multiple IPRs against BirchTech’s patents before trial. The Board granted a joint request to treat the settlement as confidential and terminated the cases for the settling petitioners.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board granted a joint request to treat settlement agreements as business‑confidential and terminated the IPRs for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light after the parties settled. Remaining petitioners’ IPRs continue.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after the parties settled, but the case continues against PacifiCorp.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references (Lundahl and Larsen) rendered the illuminator system obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB found multiple claims unpatentable under both § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references—specifically Iafrate, Kivioja, and Bielas—in the context of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. Claim construction was finalized, defining key terms like 'identifier site' and 'indexing site'.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB upheld the patent against IPR challenges related to NGS target enrichment. The Board clarified that 'enrichment' requires an increased proportion of the sequence relative to others, not just a raw increase in fragment count. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof on unpatentability.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories successfully secured institution status for an IPR against Eye Therapies, LLC regarding ophthalmic formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on the combination of prior art references.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against 10x Genomics, Inc., challenging numerous claims of patent 11542554. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Molecular Loop Biosciences regarding next-generation sequencing technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Parameswaran and Gloor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent, challenging claims 1-6 based on anticipation by Gloor and obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
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.