Short Summary
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for post‑grant review (PGR2025‑00059), GE Healthcare Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 12,115,233 owned by Johns Hopkins University. The petitioner contends that claims 1‑4 are obvious in view of US‑633 combined with Meletta and Jansen, and also in view of US‑121 together with Jansen. Additionally, the petition argues that the specification fails to provide a sufficient written description and does not enable the claimed breadth of low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑targeting compounds, which number in the billions. The Board is urged to institute trial and cancel the claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. vs The Johns Hopkins University et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.
Henri Daussi, LLCvsECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Henri Daussi, LLC's motion to withdraw its IPR petition against ECNA, LLC's patent 9,398,791, while allowing the parties to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settling.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
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.