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
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al.vsTecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted IDT’s IPR. The patent owner alleges procedural errors, over‑reliance on expert testimony, and policy conflicts, seeking denial of the petition.
Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.
Straumann USA, LLC et al.vsSmart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 33 claims of ImberaTek’s 2010 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLCvsPayRange LLC
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
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.