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
Digital Global Systems, Inc.vsDeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 patent are obvious over prior art combining Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, and therefore unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests for two IPRs have been received and set a five‑day deadline for the patent owner to file a limited response, prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 related to OLED encapsulation technology. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references involving selective deposition and barrier layer methods.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies patents.
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.