Medical diagnostics — US PTAB Patent Cases
13 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 13 total
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies has requested a PTAB Director Review of IPR2025-00242. The Patent Owner, Oncoustics, is limited to a brief response within five days, with no new evidence allowed.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 12,115,233. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review, citing the settlement and lack of an institution decision.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s U.S. Pat. 9,055,868, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical diagnostic systems.
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.