Untitled case

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech), a prominent research university known for its extensive patent portfolio and active intellectual property enforcement, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.. Bio-Rad Laboratories is a global leader in life science research and clinical diagnostics, particularly recognized for its droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) technology. The litigation, case number 5:25-cv-01701, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 18, 2025, and concluded rapidly with a dismissal on June 18, 2025, marking a "Defendant Win" after only 120 days.

The core of the dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797 B2, which broadly covers technologies relevant to droplet-based digital PCR systems. Caltech accused Bio-Rad's flagship ddPCR product lines, specifically the Bio-Rad QX ONE Droplet Digital PCR System and the Bio-Rad QX600 Droplet Digital PCR System, of infringing this patent. The complaint for patent infringement was filed by attorneys from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP on behalf of Caltech. While a specific judge is not immediately apparent from the case overview, the Northern District of California is known for its sophistication in handling patent litigation, making it a common venue for technology disputes. The swift dismissal of the case against a major player like Bio-Rad in a high-value diagnostics and genomics market highlights strategic considerations in early-stage patent litigation tactics.

This case is notable as it reflects Caltech's broader and aggressive patent assertion program, which has historically targeted major technology companies across various industries, including high-profile Wi-Fi related litigations against Apple and Broadcom. While Caltech has seen success in other patent campaigns, including a significant jury verdict against Apple and Broadcom (though later subject to a new damages trial), the quick dismissal in the Bio-Rad case without a public settlement raises questions about the assertion strategy in the life sciences sector. The outcome serves as an instructive signal for IP professionals navigating freedom-to-operate risks in the rapidly evolving precision medicine and genomics instrumentation space.

The patent infringement litigation, Case No. 5:25-cv-01701, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, involved Plaintiff California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Defendant Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. The dispute focused on U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797 B2, which covers technologies related to droplet-based digital PCR systems. Bio-Rad's QX ONE Droplet Digital PCR System and QX600 Droplet Digital PCR System were identified as the accused products.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Caltech initiated the patent infringement action against Bio-Rad Laboratories on February 18, 2025. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797, which is directed to systems, reaction mixtures, and kits for multiplexed detection of analytes in a biochemical sample.
• Related Litigation Noted: The complaint referenced ongoing litigation between Caltech (and ChromaCode, Inc.) and Bio-Rad involving competing multiplexing technologies and declaratory judgment actions, specifically citing ChromaCode, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-04823-EKL (N.D. Cal.) and No. 5:23-cv-06360-EKL (N.D. Cal.).

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
Given the case's short duration (120 days), it is unlikely that extensive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment were fully litigated. The provided information indicates an early resolution.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
The case resolved quickly, before reaching the claim construction stage.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
No significant discovery milestones were publicly reported due to the early dismissal.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
The case did not proceed to trial.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Case Dismissed: The case was closed on June 18, 2025, just 120 days after its filing, with a dismissal marking a "Defendant Win." This rapid resolution raises strategic questions about early-stage patent litigation tactics. The nature of the dismissal (e.g., voluntary, with or without prejudice, or part of a confidential settlement) is not explicitly detailed in the public summaries but points to an early resolution.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search for PTAB proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797 B2 did not yield any active or completed IPR/PGR proceedings. Therefore, no parallel PTAB proceedings affected this specific district court litigation.

The California Institute of Technology is represented in California Institute of Technology v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01701, by attorneys from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

The following counsel are identified as representing the plaintiff:

• Martin Bader

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, California.
  • Experience Note: Bader is listed on the complaint for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797.

• Jesse Salen

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, California.
  • Experience Note: Salen is listed on the complaint for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797.

• Bradley C. Graveline

  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice Pending at the time of filing)
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience Note: Graveline is listed on the complaint for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,797.

Additionally, while not appearing as counsel of record in direct court filings, Caltech's Office of the General Counsel includes attorneys who manage intellectual property and litigation for the institution. For example, Darren Franklin serves as Associate General Counsel, focusing on intellectual property, technology transfer, research, and compliance, with over twenty years of experience in patent litigation. Steve Atlee is the Deputy General Counsel at Caltech, and his responsibilities include managing litigation and overseeing the Office of General Counsel operations.

Defendant's Counsel Identified in Caltech v. Bio-Rad Laboratories

In the patent infringement case, California Institute of Technology v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (5:25-cv-01701), the defendant, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., was represented by attorneys from Jones Day. The case, which was filed on February 18, 2025, and dismissed on June 18, 2025, concluded within 120 days.

Based on available information, the following counsel represented Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.:

• Edward P. Reines
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California
  • Experience: Edward Reines is a seasoned patent litigator, and his involvement in this case signaled Bio-Rad's preparation for a vigorous defense, which may have contributed to the early resolution of the dispute. He is widely recognized for his extensive experience in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, particularly in the technology and life sciences sectors.

While specific docket entries detailing all appearing counsel are not immediately available without direct PACER access, the early mention of Jones Day and Edward Reines in the context of Bio-Rad's defense suggests their primary role in the matter. Given the swift dismissal of the case, it is less likely that an extensive list of local or in-house counsel made formal appearances or were extensively involved in merits briefing.

Note on Case Outcome: The case was dismissed, indicating a "Defendant Win" and an early resolution before any responsive pleading on the merits was filed.