Executive Summary
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00069, allowing GE Healthcare Ltd. to challenge claims in patent 11938201 held by The Johns Hopkins University.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. vs The Johns Hopkins University et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al.vsKyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging all 30 claims of Patent No. 11241776. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al.vsArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent (10961602) regarding coated steel/aluminum alloys for automotive parts. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, instituting the challenge across 30 claims.
HighLevel, Inc.vsEtison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel, Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Etison LLC's website creation patent. The denial was based on the parallel District Court finding that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Askeladden L.L.C.vsCalabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent 8783564, asserting that its core claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Horie and Kobayashi. The Board ruled against discretionary denial, moving the case into active litigation status.
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.