Biotechnology — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 5 · 129 total
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Tecan’s ’357 sequencing patent, arguing that the invention was fully disclosed in earlier barcoding and sequencing literature.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics for patent number 11725241. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability across multiple claims based on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the PTAB post‑grant review. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. §327(b) and related regulations.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,781,148 covering yeast metabolic engineering.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology has filed a PGR petition challenging Radici Chimica’s 2023 patent on engineered yeast for terpene production, arguing obviousness over Bailey and Zhang and lack of enablement due to the claim breadth.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics objected to the evidentiary exhibits submitted by Integrated DNA Technologies in the IPR proceeding, citing multiple Federal Rules of Evidence violations and lack of relevance as prior art.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to a Director Review request, defending the institution of its IPR against Tecan’s challenges and arguing that the Board acted properly. The petition emphasizes the legitimacy of expert testimony and rejects the patent owner’s procedural objections.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG files a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies. The patent owner alleges procedural abuse, unsupported expert testimony, and misinterpretation of claim scope. The request highlights parallel litigation and discretionary denial issues.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Tecan’s DNA‑sequencing patent. The petitioner argues the institution is efficient, the expert testimony is proper, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Board’s institution therefore stands.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Integrated DNA Technologies’ IPR, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary‑denial standards, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and created wasteful parallel litigation. The request cites policy under §§ 316(b) and 325(d) and urges denial of the petition.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG files a Director Review request to overturn an institution decision that could invalidate its DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the panel misapplied law, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and ignored PTAB policy on parallel petitions.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving Tecan Genomics. The Board concluded the petitions did not merit overturning the earlier institution rulings.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Tecan's DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the Board acted properly and that expert testimony was appropriate.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics filed objections to the evidence submitted by Integrated DNA Technologies in IPR2024-01502, citing multiple Federal Rules of Evidence and arguing that the exhibits are either hearsay, irrelevant, unauthenticated, or post‑date the patent and thus not prior art.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of three institution decisions, leaving Tecan's genomics patent claims instituted.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’357 patent covering NGS library‑preparation methods, asserting obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT seeks to invalidate Tecan's ’399 NGS patent by alleging obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Tecan’s ’241 patent, arguing that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious in view of Kivioja (2011) and Bielas (2013) disclosures.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Iafrate and Kivioja for key NGS claims. The Board also provided definitive claim constructions for 'indexing site' and 'identifier site.'
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies challenged Tecan Genomics's NGS patent (9546399) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Iafrate and Kivioja. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iafrate and Kivioja.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute trial against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent claims related to genomic sequencing and analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1, allowing the IPR to proceed despite extensive prior art challenges under Sections 102 and 103.
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'.
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.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
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.