Medical imaging — US PTAB Patent Cases
36 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 36 total
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Tempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully moved its IPR against Align Technology's dental scanning patent to the trial phase. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution on all 20 claims.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate UBC’s 10,751,029 ultrasound‑image‑analysis patent, asserting anticipation by Krishnan and obviousness over Chen, Aase and Wu. All 30 claims are challenged under §§102 and 103.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Longhorn Automotive's 8,265,353 patent covering CT‑PET motion correction. The petition alleges the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Weese, Muehllehner and Wainer. No institution decision has been made yet.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen Group of America successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1's obviousness over Weese. The Board instituted review for all 18 claims and grounds due to procedural deficiencies by the Patent Owner.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health has filed an IPR petition challenging UBC’s 2021 ultrasound imaging patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references describing view‑specific neural‑network quality assessment.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,941,817 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software seeks an IPR of EXINI Diagnostics' 3D cancer‑lesion segmentation patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition claims the examiner erred by relying on an outdated Hamadeh reference.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc.'s patent (11941817) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Renisch and Zhao.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of a Johns Hopkins FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceutical patent, asserting obviousness over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent covering claims 1‑24, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior‑art references such as Arai and Pelc. Discretionary factors, including a stay in a related district‑court case, led the Board to reject a denial request.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Kavo Dental Technologies (as represented by Dentsply Sirona) would prevail on at least one claim.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Osseo Imaging’s 8,498,374 patent covering dental CT densitometry. The petition relies on Arai and Pelc prior‑art references, arguing anticipation and obviousness for all 24 claims.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition for inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s ‘262 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The petitioner relies on three grounds—Massie, Arai, and Pelc—to argue that claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated or obvious.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Progenics' prostate‑cancer imaging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and opposes discretionary denial under §314(a).
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed a petition to invalidate Progenics' U.S. Patent 11,894,141, asserting that its claims on prostate‑cancer imaging are obvious over prior‑art references such as Maier, Huang and Armor. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition challenging Progenics' patent on AI‑driven medical risk mapping, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also cites Fintiv factors to support institution.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to institute IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals regarding a medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to properly construe the key term 'risk map,' proposing multiple ambiguous definitions without adequate justification.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on its AI‑driven ultrasound patent. The petitioner claims the Board erred factually and legally by demanding proof beyond the expert testimony that the prior art discloses a single‑frame ultrasound data set.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Oncoustics successfully defended the Board’s decision to deny institution of an IPR filed by Precision Cancer Technologies. The patent owner showed the petitioner failed to prove the primary reference disclosed a single static set of raw RF ultrasound data, and the petitioner’s new arguments were untimely.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Oncoustics’ 330 Patent covering ultrasound‑based machine‑learning classification, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Hope‑Simpson, Nair and Azizi.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.'s IPR challenge against Oncoustics Inc. was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate that prior art processed a 'single static set' of raw RF ultrasound data.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
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.