Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00659, was filed on May 28, 2025, in the District of Delaware. The plaintiff is Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. (and Fujirebio Europe N.V.), while the defendant is Quanterix Corporation. Both companies operate in the medical diagnostics industry, with a focus on biomarkers for various conditions.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,275,092. This patent generally describes methods for determining a patient's prognosis and/or treatment protocol following a brain injury, particularly those resulting from a hypoxic event. The methods involve measuring the concentration of tau protein in patient samples using highly sensitive assays, capable of detecting very low concentrations (e.g., less than about 5 pg/ml with a limit of quantification below 0.2 pg/ml). While the specific accused products or services from Quanterix Corporation are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, Quanterix is known for developing ultra-sensitive detection technologies for molecules and particles, which aligns with the technical scope of the asserted patent.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation due to its established patent rules and experienced judiciary. The presiding judge for this case is Judge Jennifer L. Hall. A notable aspect of this litigation is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed against the very patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,275,092. Curiously, Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc., the plaintiff asserting the patent in this district court action, is also listed as the "Petitioner" in the IPR, seeking to challenge the patent's validity. This unusual stance, where the asserting party is simultaneously challenging the validity of the same patent, suggests a complex legal strategy or a potential reversal of roles in the IPR compared to typical patent challenges.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v. Quanterix Corporation

Case Number: 1:25-cv-00659
Court: Delaware District Court
Patents at Issue: US Patent 11,275,092

Chronological Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2025-05-28: Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Fujirebio") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Quanterix Corporation ("Quanterix") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,275,092. The patent generally relates to methods of determining a treatment protocol for and/or prognosis of a patient's recovery from a brain injury, specifically involving the quantification of tau protein in a patient sample.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • 2025-05-28 (Effective Date): Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. also filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01060) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the patentability of claims 1, 6-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,275,092. The petition argued that these claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references.
  • Status: The IPR petition (IPR2025-01060) was "Not Instituted" due to procedural reasons. This means the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the challenged patent claims.

• Current Posture:

  • As of the current date (2026-05-18), the district court case 1:25-cv-00659 is active in the Delaware District Court. Given its filing date in May 2025, the case is likely still in the early stages of litigation, such as discovery, with potential for further pre-trial motions and claim construction. Specific details regarding answer filings, counterclaims, or other substantive motions are not readily available in the provided search snippets beyond the initial filing.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in case 1:25-cv-00659 in the Delaware District Court using publicly available web search results at this time. Detailed attorney appearances for specific district court dockets are often behind paywalls (e.g., PACER) or require access to specialized legal databases, which are not accessible via general web search. Therefore, I cannot provide the names, roles, firms, or experience for the attorneys representing Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. in this particular case.

While a related PTAB IPR (IPR2025-01060) involving Fujirebio Diagnostics Inc. v. Quanterix Corp. and patent 11,275,092 mentions "E. Orion Armon" in connection with the IPR, there is no public web search result confirming his appearance or role in the specific District Court case 1:25-cv-00659.

1. Confirm Orion Armon's firm and location: Search results,,,,,, and consistently identify Orion Armon as a Partner at Cooley LLP, based in their Colorado office.

2. Summarize Orion Armon's experience: The search results indicate he is an experienced trial lawyer focusing on patent litigation in US district courts, PTAB, and the Federal Circuit. He specializes in high-stakes life sciences IP litigation, including medical devices and diagnostics. A notable case mentioned is Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., where he was lead counsel and argued the appeal that led to a significant decision on patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101. He has litigated cases involving assays for detecting Alzheimer's disease, ophthalmological stents, blood glucose monitoring systems, and various computer hardware and software technologies. He is also a co-creator and co-executive editor of PTAB Digest.

3. Identify local Delaware counsel: Search result states, "October 27, 2025, Pro Hac Vice Attorney Orion Armon for Quanterix Corporation added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (slk)." This explicitly indicates there should be Delaware counsel. I need to find the specific Delaware counsel listed on the docket for Quanterix Corporation. I will look for other attorneys listed for Quanterix Corporation in the Justia docket.

Reviewing again, it shows the general docket information but doesn't explicitly list the Delaware counsel for Quanterix Corporation by name in a way that readily stands out from the provided snippets. The "slk" after the Orion Armon entry is likely the initial of the docket clerk, not an attorney. To accurately identify the local Delaware counsel, a direct look at the full docket sheet or a more targeted search for counsel appearances for Quanterix Corporation in 1:25-cv-00659 is necessary. Since I don't have direct PACER access, I will try to infer or find this information from public docket summaries.

Given the typical practice in Delaware, a local firm almost always serves as local counsel. I will search for common Delaware patent litigation firms and see if any are associated with Quanterix Corporation in this case or similar cases in D. Del.

However, the prompt says "If filings are sealed or counsel hasn't appeared yet, say so explicitly. Do not invent attorneys." I have not definitively identified the local counsel from the provided search results in a directly citable manner (e.g., "Attorney X of Firm Y is listed as local counsel for Quanterix"). I know there must be one due to local rules and Orion Armon's pro hac vice admission.

Let's try one more search specifically for Delaware counsel for Quanterix in this case.Based on available public information, the counsel of record representing defendant Quanterix Corporation in case 1:25-cv-00659 in the Delaware District Court includes:

• Orion Armon

  • Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice in the District of Delaware).
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Colorado office.
  • Experience: Mr. Armon is an experienced trial lawyer focusing on high-stakes patent litigation across US district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He specializes in life sciences intellectual property litigation, particularly involving medical devices and diagnostics technologies, but also handles computer hardware and software. Notably, he served as lead trial counsel in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., a case that resulted in a precedential Federal Circuit decision on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. His experience includes cases involving assays for detecting Alzheimer's disease, ophthalmological stents, blood glucose monitoring systems, and surgical robotics. He is also a co-creator and co-executive editor of PTAB Digest, an online resource tracking PTAB decisions.

• A. Andrew Mace (also referred to as Andrew Mace)

  • Role: Special Counsel.
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, an unspecified office (likely with Mr. Armon, but not explicitly stated to be Colorado).
  • Experience: Mr. Mace is a special counsel in Cooley's intellectual property litigation practice group, focusing on patent litigation and post-grant proceedings at the USPTO, primarily inter partes review. He has represented clients in patent cases related to online messaging and the "Like" button technology.

While the docket entry indicates that Mr. Armon's pro hac vice admission requires the presence of local Delaware counsel, the specific names of the Delaware counsel for Quanterix Corporation in this case are not explicitly identified in the accessible search results.