Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
Petitioner Alamar Biosciences, Inc., challenged Olink Proteomics AB's patent (7883848) by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 across multiple combinations of prior art references. The petitioner focused on demonstrating that the claimed molecular interaction screening and DNA templated synthesis would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA). After analyzing four distinct grounds, including those involving Kanan/Neri and Baez/Landegren, the PTAB decided to institute proceedings for claims 1-20. The Board determined that there was a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case into trial.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Alamar Biosciences, Inc. vs Olink Proteomics AB et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom's 8,385,913 patent, asserting that the claimed server‑mediated device‑identifier exchange is fully anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung challenged Headwater's patent (9179359) in an IPR proceeding focused on network traffic control claims. The PTAB granted institution, allowing Samsung to proceed with its § 103 obviousness challenge against Claim 26 using Shell and Cole prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of Netlist’s 8,516,185 B2 memory‑module patent are unpatentable. Samsung, as petitioner, successfully demonstrated obviousness over a combination of Halbert and Amidi references.
Tesla, Inc.vsBulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of the ’184 vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists thirteen grounds covering combinations of Joos with Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al.vsHowmet Aerospace Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
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.
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.