Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Tecan Group AG

IPR2024-01502

Tecan Group AG files a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies. The patent owner alleges procedural abuse, unsupported expert testimony, and misinterpretation of claim scope. The request highlights parallel litigation and discretionary denial issues.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01502
Filing Date
30 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00931

American Airlines, Inc. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’844 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-01046

Sony CorporationvsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.

patentIPR2024-01205

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.

patentIPR2025-00378

iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-01489

Slack Technologies, LLC et al.vsWrinkl, Inc.

Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.

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