Short Summary
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition challenging Progenics' patent on AI‑driven medical risk mapping, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also cites Fintiv factors to support institution.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00630), MIM Software Inc. challenges all thirteen claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,665,346, owned by Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The patent claims a network‑based system and method for generating disease risk maps using machine‑learning analysis of medical images. MIM argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art references such as Renisch, Sprencz, and Suehling, either alone or combined with Wu, Maier, D’Souza, the applicant’s admitted prior art, or Menon. The petition also invokes the Fintiv factors, emphasizing the parallel district‑court litigation and the lack of a set trial date, to argue that the Board should not deny institution. No decision has been made yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MIM Software Inc. et al. vs Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million, granting a non‑exclusive license and ending all related litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a reply opposing Mullen Industries’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering Samsung’s smartwatch patent. The petitioner argues that discretionary factors favor institution, citing lack of overlap and strong merits. Samsung seeks denial of the director’s review request.
Tesla Inc.vsGranite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of ImberaTek’s ’816 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art packaging references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
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.