Biotechnology — US PTAB Patent Cases
71 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 3 · 71 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.
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.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑10 of Seikagaku’s 11,959,109 patent covering recombinant endotoxin assay methods. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation by a 2019 publication.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of the ‘022 patent covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Curio Bioscience against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over Cantor or anticipated by Frisen. The Board upheld the Patent Owner's position regarding spatial analysis in tissue samples.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.
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.