Rachel Bach

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig into the litigation and any PTAB involvement.

Let me verify her docket appearance and any additional professional detail.

Specialty and side of the docket. Rachel Bach's tracked patent litigation appearance is a single matter on the plaintiff side, as in-house counsel — a patent-owner/operating-company posture rather than NPE/PAE assertion work. The technology at issue is medical devices, specifically continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): analyte sensors, on-body wearables, automatic inserter and mount mechanics, and short-range wireless data transfer between sensor electronics and display devices (Bluetooth/BLE and NFC/RFID). With only one tracked appearance, no reliable pattern of side preference or technology breadth can be drawn from the case data, and nothing in the public record suggests a broader litigation docket.

Firm context. She is in-house IP counsel at Abbott, based at Abbott Park, Illinois — the Martindale and Avvo records for a Rachel Nicole Bach list her as an attorney at Abbott Laboratories, and the tracked case is captioned to Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Abbott Diabetes Care Ltd. No prior law-firm history or prior in-house employer is verifiable from the sources available, so I would not assert one. Note that "Rachel Bach" is a common name; the professional directory entries matching the Abbott Park in-house role are the basis for this identification, but the match is not confirmed by a court filing bearing her name.

Notable matters. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., D. Del. (lead case 21-cv-977, consolidated with 21-cv-1699 and 22-cv-605, and later 23-cv-239), was the flagship dispute between the two CGM competitors. Abbott asserted multiple patents covering inserter, mount, and sensor/communication features against Dexcom's G6. Abbott sought roughly $1.38 billion in damages (Dexcom's accused sales); the court granted a new trial on damages and granted JMOL that Dexcom did not willfully infringe, while letting infringement and lost-profits issues proceed. The parties announced a global settlement on December 23, 2024, dismissing all pending cases in courts and patent offices worldwide with no financial payments and a 10-year covenant against further patent, trade dress, and design litigation. A related Federal Circuit appeal (No. 23-1795, Jan. 3, 2024) affirmed denial of Dexcom's motion to enjoin Abbott's IPRs, holding the parties' license agreement's forum-selection clause did not bar those petitions.

PTAB/IPR and credentials. The Abbott-Dexcom dispute included substantial PTAB activity in both directions (e.g., Dexcom's IPR2022-00605 against the '649 patent; Abbott's own IPR petitions that prompted the appeal above), and the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board obviousness holding in No. 24-1291 (Aug. 19, 2025). However, the IPR papers I reviewed list outside counsel (Kirkland & Ellis) as counsel of record, so I cannot verify that Bach personally appears in those proceedings; her involvement is best characterized as in-house oversight of the portfolio and litigation rather than documented IPR advocacy. Bar and education: admitted in Illinois (2008) and Wisconsin (2013); education is inconsistently reported (Martindale lists John Marshall Law School, 2008, while Avvo lists both University of Illinois College of Law and John Marshall), so I would omit or flag the education line until corroborated.