Untitled case

IPR2025-01319 is a pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, challenging the validity of US Patent No. 11,703,443. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443, is titled "System and method for determining contact height of a packaged chip" and relates to the inspection of chip contacts, specifically for Ball Grid Array (BGA) and Land Grid Array (LGA) packaged chips, by utilizing both direct and structured light to determine contact heights.

As of May 22, 2026, details regarding the specific Petitioner and Patent Owner for IPR2025-01319, as well as any associated accused product or service, are not readily available in public search results without direct access to the PTAB's docket or more specific legal news coverage of this particular IPR. The procedural posture places this case within the PTAB, an administrative tribunal focused on reviewing the patentability of claims post-grant. The PTAB is a significant venue for patent challenges, often running in parallel with district court litigation, and its proceedings are increasingly influenced by evolving guidelines on discretionary denials, such as those related to parallel litigation and "settled expectations" of the parties.

The notability of this specific IPR is not immediately apparent from general search results. However, IPRs filed in 2025 and 2026 are frequently notable due to the USPTO Director's increased emphasis on discretionary denial factors, including considerations like the petitioner's "settled expectations" regarding patent enforcement, the stage of parallel district court proceedings (under Fintiv factors), and potential inconsistencies in claim construction arguments across different forums. Without further information on the parties or specific rulings in IPR2025-01319, its particular significance beyond these general trends in PTAB practice cannot be determined.

IPR2025-01319 is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, challenging the validity of US Patent No. 11,703,443. This patent is titled "System and method for determining contact height of a packaged chip" and relates to inspecting chip contacts for BGA and LGA packaged chips. As of May 22, 2026, the specific Petitioner and Patent Owner for IPR2025-01319 are not publicly available without direct access to the PTAB's docket.

There is no information readily available regarding any parallel district court litigation directly asserting US Patent No. 11,703,443. Therefore, this summary will focus on the IPR proceeding itself and general PTAB developments relevant to an IPR filed in 2025.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01319 (as of 2026-05-22):

Since IPR2025-01319 was filed in 2025 and is still pending, the key developments would primarily revolve around the PTAB's institution process and the evolving landscape of PTAB practice in 2025-2026.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Petition for IPR): The IPR petition for IPR2025-01319 was filed in 2025. The specific date of filing and the arguments contained within the petition against the '443 patent are not publicly detailed without direct docket access.
• Pre-Institution Phase & Discretionary Denials (2025-2026): For IPRs filed in 2025, the PTAB landscape significantly changed due to new policies and guidance from the USPTO Director.
  • February 28, 2025: Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded a 2022 memorandum that had constrained NHK-Fintiv denials, which consider parallel district court litigation in deciding whether to institute an IPR. This elevated discretionary gatekeeping.
  • March 26, 2025: The USPTO formalized a new, bifurcated institution regime. Under this regime, the Director first resolves discretionary factors. If discretion favors institution, only then does a PTAB panel address the merits. This change gave patent owners a dedicated brief to argue for discretionary denial.
  • Director's Expanded Discretion: The Director's office has increased discretionary denials, with a focus on factors such as "settled expectations" of the patent owner. This factor considers the length of time a challenged patent has been in force, and whether there have been previous assertions, commercialization, or licensing of the patent. A petitioner's own assessment of non-infringement or a belief they were licensed might not overcome a patent owner's strong settled expectations.
  • September 18, 2025: New Director John Squires was confirmed and asserted personal control over all IPR and PGR institution decisions.
  • October 17, 2025: Director Squires issued a memorandum stating he would decide both discretionary and merits issues for institution.
  • Federal Circuit Review of Discretionary Denials: In early November 2025, the Federal Circuit denied the first mandamus petitions challenging the new bifurcated process, the rollback of Sotera stipulations (where petitioners agree to forego certain invalidity grounds in district court), and the new discretionary factors like "settled expectations."
  • March 18, 2026: A precedential decision in IPR2025-01579 (not IPR2025-01319) denied institution because the Petitioner was deemed a foreign sovereign or plausibly could be, and thus not a "person" under AIA review statutes.
• Institution Decision: For IPR2025-01319, an institution decision would have been a critical development. Given the heightened scrutiny and expanded discretionary denial factors in 2025-2026, the petition may have been denied institution based on these factors (e.g., Fintiv considerations if there was parallel litigation, or "settled expectations"). Conversely, if instituted, the case would have proceeded to a merits review. The current status "Pending" means that a final written decision has not yet been issued, but it does not definitively state whether the petition was instituted or denied institution.
• Outcome: As of May 22, 2026, the case is still pending, meaning a final outcome such as a Final Written Decision finding claims patentable or unpatentable, a settlement, or dismissal has not yet been reached. The PTAB's fiscal year 2025 statistics show that 25% of IPR petitions were settled, 21% were denied institution, and 18% resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. Without access to the specific docket for IPR2025-01319, the particular outcome or current phase within the PTAB process cannot be determined.

There is no information available regarding claim construction, discovery, trial events, or appeals related to US Patent No. 11,703,443 or IPR2025-01319 in the provided search results.

The counsel of record for the petitioner in IPR2025-01319 is not directly available in the provided search results. However, the search results do contain a document from a related PTAB case, PGR2025-00088, which explicitly references IPR2025-01319 and states that the "Director's denial of the '443 IPR (see id., Paper 13)" occurred. This indicates that the IPR2025-01319 petition was denied institution.

While the petitioner's counsel for IPR2025-01319 is not explicitly listed, other PTAB documents from 2025 provide examples of how counsel are listed. For instance, in IPR2025-00819, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, represented the Petitioner, ClearCorrect Operating, LLC, with Charles Collins-Chase as Lead Counsel. Similarly, another document from April 2026, IPR2025-01312, identifies Robert G. Pluta of Mayer Brown LLP as counsel for the Patent Owner. Without direct access to the docket for IPR2025-01319, the specific petitioner's counsel for that particular IPR cannot be identified at this time. Filings for PTAB cases include mandatory notices that list counsel information.

Given that the IPR petition for IPR2025-01319 was denied institution, the role of "plaintiff(s)" counsel is somewhat moot in the context of the IPR itself, as the PTAB proceeding has concluded at the institution phase. However, if this IPR was initiated in response to a district court patent infringement case, the "plaintiff" in that parallel litigation would be the patent owner. The provided information notes that a district court had already denied a motion by the Petitioner to stay the litigation related to the '443 patent.

I'll research this systematically. Note an important framing issue up front: the case metadata identifies this as IPR2025-01319 (a PTAB proceeding), so the closest analog to "defendant's counsel" is the Patent Owner / Respondent's counsel. Let me search.

Excellent — the search returned substantive, specific data. Key correction to flag: the patent is titled "Flow Cytometer," not "System and method for determining contact height of a packaged chip." Let me pin down the parties, the parallel litigation, and counsel.

Now I have the core facts. Let me pin down the IPR-side counsel (especially "Alexis Cohen" for the Patent Owner) and the denial decision.

Framing correction first (important)

The task asks for "defendant(s)" counsel in "this patent infringement case." Two things need flagging:

1. The case in the metadata is a PTAB proceeding, not a district court case. IPR2025-01319 is Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al., filed July 17, 2025, and — contrary to what the earlier sections suggested — the parties are now identifiable, and the proceeding is already over: a Director discretionary decision denying institution issued Nov 20, 2025 (Paper 13), and the case terminated that same day. A petitioner refund of post-institution fees was filed Mar 25, 2026 and the refund approved Mar 27, 2026 — the standard consequence of a denial of institution under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15.
2. There is a real, parallel patent infringement case: Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 1:24-cv-00945-CFC-EGT (D. Del., filed Aug. 14, 2024, Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 10,330,582; 11,703,443; and 12,174,107. That is the only true "patent infringement case" in this family. A Delaware jury returned a verdict Aug. 20–21, 2026: Cytek won non-infringement and invalidity on three of four asserted claims; one claim was found infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, with $36M royalties + $20M lost profits ($56M total).

So "defendant" depends on the forum:

• District court (D. Del. 1:24-cv-00945): defendant = Cytek Biosciences, Inc.
• PTAB (IPR2025-01319): the defensive party is the Patent Owner/Respondent = Beckman Coulter, Inc. (Cytek is the petitioner).

I give both below.

---

A. Defendant's counsel — Beckman Coulter v. Cytek, D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-00945 (defendant = Cytek Biosciences, Inc.)

Counsel appears in two tiers: a Delaware local-counsel firm and a national trial firm appearing pro hac vice. Sourced from the CourtListener docket (docket ID 69045881) and served-counsel lists in D.I. 175, 243, 361, 414.

Not identified: no in-house/GC counsel for Cytek appears in any retrieved filing. I did not verify individual attorney bios or representative matters for the Cooley or Morris Nichols team — treat the "experience" characterization as unverified rather than sourced.

---

B. Defensive-side counsel in IPR2025-01319 (Patent Owner/Respondent = Beckman Coulter, Inc.)

That WilmerHale represents Beckman Coulter is independently corroborated: WilmerHale is Beckman Coulter's litigation counsel in the D. Del. case (Omar A. Khan, Jeffrey A. Dennhardt, Lauren E. Matlock-Colangelo, Asher S. McGuffin, Akkad Y. Moussa, Laura Macro, Jennifer L. Graber, Maggie Sawin, Kelly A. Todd, and later Gillian T. Farrell and Daniel S. Perry). The IPR-side counsel list is a third-party aggregator (GreyB/IPverse) entry reading only "Cohen, Alexis et al" — I could not retrieve the PTAB mandatory notice (Paper 2) or the full "et al." list from PTAB docket/PATS. Do not treat this as the complete counsel roster.

---

C. For completeness — plaintiff/petitioner side (already covered in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section)

• Beckman Coulter (plaintiff / patent owner): lead national counsel Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Omar A. Khan, New York; Asher S. McGuffin, Boston; Akkad Y. Moussa and the 2026 additions Gillian T. Farrell and Daniel S. Perry, Washington, DC) with Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. as Delaware counsel (Frederick L. Cottrell III, Kelly E. Farnan, Christine D. Haynes, Gabriela Z. Monasterio — Monasterio's notice of appearance entered Aug. 3, 2026, D.I. 405).
• Cytek (IPR petitioner): per the aggregator, petitioner counsel "Knight, Dustin et al," consistent with Cooley LLP.

---

D. Contradictions with the previously generated sections — flagged

1. Patent title is wrong in the prior sections. US 11,703,443 is titled "Flow Cytometer" (a wavelength-division-multiplexer / spectral flow cytometry patent), not "System and method for determining contact height of a packaged chip." Accumulating evidence: the IPR2025