Short Summary
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and 10x Genomics jointly asked the PTAB to file their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file. The request invokes 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations to protect the settlement details.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00526 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554, Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., the patent owner President and Fellows of Harvard College, and exclusive licensee 10x Genomics, Inc. filed a joint request with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to have their settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. The parties seek to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure to instances of good cause or to federal agencies, thereby safeguarding proprietary details while the inter‑ partes review proceeds.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. vs 10x Genomics, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
Shopify Inc.vsDKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
DELL INC. et al.vsAX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports opposes SportsCastr’s request for Director Review, contending the Board properly analyzed the webserver limitation and that PANDA’s arguments were waived. The Board’s decision should stand and the request be denied.
Dexcom, Inc.vsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims 1, 13, and 29 of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent (US 11298056). The challenger asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Patel-2009 and Paradigm® REAL-Time. This petition also argues against discretionary denial, asserting the arguments are new and diligent.
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.