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

IPR2024-01506

Tecan Group AG files a Director Review request to overturn an institution decision that could invalidate its DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the panel misapplied law, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and ignored PTAB policy on parallel petitions.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01506
Filing Date
30 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00715

Databricks, Inc.vsByteWeavr LLC

Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

patentIPR2025-00191

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.

patentIPR2024-01212

Avanos Medical, Inc.vsStratus Medical, LLC

Petitioner Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's '664 Patent, asserting that all claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references in RF ablation technology. The challenge rests entirely on statutory grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103, utilizing multiple prior art patents related to neurotomy devices.

patentIPR2025-00157

ResMed Corp.vsCleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.

patentIPR2025-00432

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in its IPR against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that the petitioner adequately showed Murakami discloses key features and that combinations with Beard and Akiike were motivated and predictable.

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