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

IPR2024-01502

IDT seeks to invalidate Tecan's ’399 NGS patent by alleging obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.

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

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

patentIPR2025-01183

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent were obvious over Perttila and Insolia and thus unpatentable, while claims 25, 26, 28, 29 remained patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the parties.

patentIPR2024-01280

Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al.vsRAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.

patentIPR2025-00221

Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.

patentIPR2024-01265

3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.

3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.

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