Biotechnology — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 5 · 129 total
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Genzyme’s ’313 patent covering AAV detection methods. The petition asserts obviousness over four pre‑grant publications describing LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC techniques for viral proteins.
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 has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,001,879, asserting lack of written‑description support and that the claims are anticipated by Frisen and obvious over Cantor (with Armani). The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of a spatial transcriptomics patent owned by Prognosys/10x Genomics, alleging obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
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 that the asserted claims were not obvious or anticipated by the prior art. The Board specifically rejected arguments linking Cantor to spatial analysis in tissue sections.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of the ‘030 spatial‑transcriptomics patent, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen, plus lack of written‑description support. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds apply.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 11,549,138 covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen, and asserting lack of written description support.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR against Prognosys/10X Genomics, finding no grounds for invalidity based on obviousness (Cantor/Armani) or anticipation (Frisen). The Board concluded that the prior art did not teach the necessary combination elements of spatially encoded biological assays.
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
QIAGEN’s response argues the PTAB correctly found material error in the examiner’s reliance on a flawed declaration and that the Board’s institution decision stands. The petition challenges the patent owner’s attempt to obtain discretionary denial based on procedural grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and an Acting Director memo.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied QIAGEN's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,876,108 owned by Tecan.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted QIAGEN's IPR petition challenging its genotyping patent. The owner contends the panel abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and ignored policy against multiple parallel petitions.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s response defends the PTAB’s institution of unpatentability findings for its NGS enrichment patents, rejecting Tecan’s arguments for a discretionary denial under §325(d). The petitioner emphasizes material error, proper nexus analysis, and lack of procedural abuse.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN contests Tecan's request for discretionary denial of a parallel IPR, arguing procedural impropriety and lack of supporting authority. The response cites General Plastic factors and the strength of its claim‑1 invalidity case.
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
The PTAB denied QIAGEN’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00028, leaving the institution of the patent intact.
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).
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.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Tecan’s ’108 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for next‑generation sequencing, arguing obviousness over Shapero, Delseny, Jones and Hamady references.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN seeks an IPR of Tecan’s ’241 patent covering NGS duplicate‑read detection, asserting that all 16 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as McCloskey, Porreca, and Schmitt.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
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.