Biotechnology — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 5 · 129 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 11,041,149 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and anticipates all claims under prior art US‑275.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Merus N.V.'s U.S. Patent No. 9,358,286 covering bispecific antibodies. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Lazar, Arathoon, and Cabrera, and argues against discretionary denial.
Halozyme, Inc. v.Alteogen Inc.
Halozyme has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Alteogen’s 2025 ‘638 patent covering a temperature‑shift method for producing recombinant hyaluronidase PH20. The petition relies on obviousness over prior art Wei and Zmuda, with a second ground adding Wei 2013.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
Bio‑Rad petitions IPR to invalidate Caltech’s ’797 patent on multiplex PCR signal encoding, asserting the claims are obvious over Jouvenot and other prior art.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health’s patent on cfDNA tagging methods, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after rejecting Tempus AI’s obviousness arguments.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Foundation Medicine’s 9,340,830 cancer‑diagnostic patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and next‑generation sequencing.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering molecular‑tagging methods for DNA sequencing, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Miner, and Fan. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing obviousness over Kinde and Miner and citing a new claim‑construction that broadens the scope to cellular DNA.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 29‑claim ‘306 patent on the basis that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt, and that Guardant misled the examiner. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million, granting a non‑exclusive license and ending all related litigation.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health’s IPR against the ’013 single‑cell sequencing patent resulted in the Board finding all 28 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior publications by Linnarsson and McCloskey. The petition’s obviousness arguments were accepted and the patent owner’s defenses were rejected.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health’s IPR resulted in all 28 claims of the 10,697,013 B1 patent being held unpatentable for obviousness over prior‑art tagging methods. The Board affirmed the petitioner’s combination of Linnarsson and McCloskey references.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s ’510 DNA‑sequencing patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over the Lo application and other prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering 30 claims and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The PTAB denied Guardant Health's IPR challenge against Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.
Gator Bio Inc. et al. v.Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.
Gator Bio challenges Sartorius’s ’588 patent covering tip‑tray devices for optical sensing assemblies, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of Miles, Yang, WO854 and Rainin. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on all 19 claims.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
Bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE and Synogen parties, including patent assignments and cash payments, leading to dismissal of related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 32 claims of Nextgen Biologics’ tissue‑engineered graft patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art ECM references.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 30 claims of NeXtGen’s 2023 patent covering axolotl‑derived extracellular matrix scaffolds, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.