Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

IPR2024-00526

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00526
Filing Date
30 January 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00093

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.

Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.

patentIPR2025-00752

USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC

USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.

patentPGR2026-00026

Albaugh, LLCvsBASF SE et al.

Albaugh, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑6 of BASF’s 2025 glufosinate formulation patent, asserting anticipation by the Long patent and obviousness over Long alone or combined with synthesis references.

patentIPR2024-00810

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.

Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.

patentIPR2025-00529

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKeyless Licensing LLC

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.

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