Untitled case

This case, Tecan Genomics, Inc. v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC et al., case number 1:23-cv-01115, is a patent infringement litigation filed in the District of Delaware on October 6, 2023, before Judge Gregory B. Williams. The plaintiff, Tecan Genomics, Inc., is a subsidiary of Tecan Group Ltd., a Swiss company that provides laboratory instruments and solutions primarily in biopharmaceuticals, forensics, clinical diagnostics, and medical technology, specializing in automated workflow solutions and next-generation sequencing (NGS) reagents. The defendants, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, QIAGEN Gaithersburg, LLC, QIAGEN GmbH, and QIAGEN N.V., are part of QIAGEN, a German-founded multinational provider of sample and assay technologies, molecular testing systems, and bioinformatics software for molecular diagnostics, applied testing, academic research, and pharmaceutical research.

The litigation centers on alleged infringement of US Patent No. 10,036,012, among other patents (10,876,108 and 11,725,241, and 11,098,357) not included in the prompt. US Patent 10,036,012 generally relates to methods for detecting duplicate nucleic acid sequences that may arise from PCR amplification by using an identifier site included in an adaptor appended to a target nucleic acid sequence. The accused products, services, or technology from QIAGEN are alleged to infringe patents related to nucleic acid enrichment and high-throughput sequencing methods, including nucleic acid enrichment, sequencing library preparation, and identifying duplicate reads.

The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, consistently ranking among the top courts for patent filings nationwide, making it a common choice for such disputes. This particular case is notable due to the ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by QIAGEN Sciences, LLC against Tecan Genomics, Inc. concerning US Patent No. 10,036,012, as well as other related patents asserted in the district court action. These IPRs, filed in October 2024, challenge the patentability of the asserted claims, indicating a robust parallel challenge to the validity of the patents in question.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Tecan Genomics, Inc. v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC et al. (1:23-cv-01115)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the Delaware District Court, involves U.S. Patent No. 10,036,012. The case was initiated by Tecan Genomics, Inc. against QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, among other QIAGEN entities, and has seen parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Tecan Genomics, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed the patent infringement complaint against QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, QIAGEN Gaithersburg, LLC, QIAGEN GmbH, and QIAGEN N.V. (Defendants) on October 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under case number 1:23-cv-01115. The case is assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. In this action, Tecan Genomics has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,036,012, 10,876,108, 11,725,241, and 11,098,357.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Petitions Filed: Contemporaneously with the district court litigation, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, and its related entities (QIAGEN Gaithersburg, LLC, QIAGEN GmbH, and QIAGEN N.V.) filed multiple petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the asserted patents at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. These petitions specifically challenge the patentability of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,036,012, 10,876,108, and 11,725,241. The IPR petitions also note that Tecan Genomics asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,098,357 in this district court action and a related case, and that Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (IDT) has also filed IPR petitions challenging some of the same patents (11,725,241, 11,098,357, and 9,546,399). The district court case 1:23-cv-01115-GBW is explicitly listed as a "Related Matter" in the IPR filings. The PTAB will determine whether to institute these IPRs based on a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim. If instituted, a final written decision is typically issued within one year, with a possible six-month extension for good cause.

As of the current date (June 17, 2026), further detailed docket information regarding the filing of the answer, counterclaims, or specific pre-trial motions (other than an appearance motion) in the district court case, as well as the institution or outcome of the IPR proceedings, is not publicly available through the general web search. Therefore, details regarding claim construction, discovery, trial events, or final disposition are not yet determinable.

In the patent infringement case Tecan Genomics, Inc. v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC et al, filed in the Delaware District Court under case number 1:23-cv-01115, the plaintiff Tecan Genomics, Inc. is represented by the following counsel:

• John P. Padro (Counsel)

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the initial search results, but associated with the pro hac vice motion. Further research would be needed to identify his firm.
  • Note: Filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance on behalf of Tecan Genomics, Inc..

• Linnea P. Cipriano (Counsel)

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the initial search results, but associated with the pro hac vice motion. Further research would be needed to identify her firm.
  • Note: Filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance on behalf of Tecan Genomics, Inc..

• Timothy J. Beavers (Counsel)

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the initial search results, but associated with the pro hac vice motion. Further research would be needed to identify his firm.
  • Note: Filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance on behalf of Tecan Genomics, Inc..

• Scott T. Weingaertner (Counsel)

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the initial search results, but associated with the pro hac vice motion. Further research would be needed to identify his firm.
  • Note: Filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance on behalf of Tecan Genomics, Inc..

• Jack B. Blumenfeld (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note: Represents Tecan Genomics, Inc. in this action.

Note on Withdrawn Counsel:
Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP was listed as counsel but has since filed a notice of withdrawal of counsel.

In the patent infringement case Tecan Genomics, Inc. v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC et al. (1:23-cv-01115), the defendants, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, QIAGEN Gaithersburg, LLC, QIAGEN GmbH, and QIAGEN N.V., are represented by counsel from multiple firms.

Counsel for Defendants:

• Brian C. Cannon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Potentially from multiple offices, but Fish & Richardson has offices in Wilmington, DE; Washington, D.C.; and other major cities).
  • Note: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation, including in district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB.

• Landon A. Smith (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Fish & Richardson is a top-ranked firm for patent litigation, known for handling high-stakes patent cases.

• Tara Srinivasan (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Fish & Richardson attorneys are active in various aspects of intellectual property law, including patent invalidation actions and defending infringement allegations.

• David L. Bilsker (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Fish & Richardson boasts over 450 attorneys and technology specialists focused on IP law, with substantial experience in district court patent litigation.

• Andrew E. Naravage (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Fish & Richardson handles more patent cases in District Courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB than any other national firm.

• David Ellis Moore (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note: Potter Anderson & Corroon is a well-regarded Delaware firm with a focus on patent infringement litigation, frequently appearing in the District of Delaware. Their attorneys often serve as lead or Delaware counsel in a substantial number of intellectual property cases in the district.