Biotechnology — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 5 · 129 total
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
Alamar Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Olink's 7,883,848 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art combinations such as Kanan/Neri and Baez/Landegren. The petitioner asserts the examiner omitted critical references and that no discretionary factors justify denial.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
Alamar Biosciences challenged Olink Proteomics' patent on grounds of obviousness (103), leading the PTAB to institute proceedings for claims 1-20. The Board found sufficient evidence that at least some claimed inventions are unpatentable, initiating a trial phase.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
The petitioner failed to prove the obviousness of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7883848 in a Final Written Decision. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,' defining it as selecting associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide that exhibit the detectable trace.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review in an IPR case (IPR2024-01280), vacating the denial of institution. The proceeding is remanded for parties to clarify arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and parallel ITC litigation.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories has filed an IPR challenging the validity of a patent covering multiplex digital PCR assays owned by California Institute of Technology et al. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are unpatentably obvious, representing only a straightforward extension of existing nucleic acid analysis concepts.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories filed a Petition challenging the obviousness of nine claims in patent 10068051, which relates to molecular diagnostics/PCR methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed multiplexed detection techniques are straightforward extensions of existing prior art concepts found in references like Saxonov and Silverbrook.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.'s IPR challenge against California Institute of Technology et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient support for key prior art disclosures in Saxonov from the provisional application, leading to a failure to establish unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. failed to institute an IPR against California Institute of Technology et al.'s patent covering multiplexed analyte detection. The Board found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient support for key disclosures in the asserted prior art (Saxonov) during the initial petition phase.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics and Biognosys have filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of the ’360 patent, asserting that the nanoparticle‑based protein assay is fully anticipated or obvious over prior publications by Hu, Cai, and Zaccaria.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics filed an IPR challenging Natera's prenatal‑testing patent. The parties settled before the Board could institute the trial, and the Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics challenges Natera's patent covering cell-free DNA analysis methods in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references, including Forshew and Pieprzyk/May.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to a USPTO Director Review request, defending the Board’s institution of an IPR on its DNA‑sequencing patent and arguing no abuse of discretion occurred.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG petitions the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies, arguing the Panel misapplied expert testimony and misread the Meyer prior art. The request also cites policy concerns over multiple overlapping petitions.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted IDT’s IPR. The patent owner alleges procedural errors, over‑reliance on expert testimony, and policy conflicts, seeking denial of the petition.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Tecan Group's patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO Director denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00015, leaving Tecan's patent intact.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to the PTAB Director’s review request, defending the institution of an IPR against its DNA‑sequencing patents. The petitioner argues the Board acted within policy, relied properly on the Meyer reference, and did not abuse discretion.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s 10,036,012 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer 2009 paper anticipates or makes obvious all challenged claims.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully petitioned IPR against Tecan Genomics' NGS patent (US 10036012), showing a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Meyer) anticipates claims. The Board granted institution, setting the stage for a full trial on all 22 challenged claims.
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.
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.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Molecular Loop Biosciences' patents covering dual-indexing in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The petitioner argued the claims were anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Gloor and Parameswaran. The PTAB decided to institute the IPR because the Examiner failed to consider relevant prior art during prosecution.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina Inc. has filed a petition challenging eight claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology at the PTAB. The core argument is that the challenged methods are obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically involving dual-indexing techniques and sequencing platform substitutions. This challenge targets fundamental aspects of NGS methodology.
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.
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.