Illumina, Inc. v. Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.

IPR2024-01419

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01419
Judge(s)
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, ZHENYU YANG
Decision Date
30 September 2024

Detailed Summary

In this Final Written Decision, the PTAB denied the petitioner’s arguments that claims 1-9 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. The Board clarified key terms, establishing that 'collapsing step' is distinct from the 'determining step,' and ultimately found that prior art (including Chee) failed to teach the essential combination of target sequence and differentiator tag required for accurate error correction as claimed. The patent owner successfully demonstrated conception and diligence regarding the invention.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Illumina, Inc. vs Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00941

Coretronic Corporation et al.vsMaxell, LTD.

Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 7, and 8 of Maxell’s 7,159,988 projection‑optics patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-01192

Reolink Innovation Inc. et al.vsTHROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.

Reolink Innovation Inc. has filed an IPR Petition challenging patents held by THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY regarding Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connectivity for video streaming. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Lorex Manual and Kim941.

patentIPR2025-00895

Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.

patentIPR2024-00697

Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.

The Board found all five challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Petitioner successfully argued that combining existing technologies was obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).

patentIPR2025-00535

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC

Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call