Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc.

Case Overview and Background: Beckman Coulter v. Cytek Biosciences

Beckman Coulter, Inc., a major operating company known for developing and manufacturing products for biomedical testing and life sciences, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Cytek Biosciences, Inc., a direct competitor in the cell analysis solutions market. Beckman Coulter, a subsidiary of Danaher Corporation, specializes in diagnostic systems and laboratory solutions. Cytek Biosciences, also an operating company, develops high-resolution, high-content, and high-sensitivity cell analysis tools, including its Aurora and Northern Lights™ systems, which utilize its patented Full Spectrum Profiling™ (FSP™) technology. Beckman Coulter alleges that Cytek's Aurora flow cytometers and other related systems infringe its "wavelength division multiplexing optical patents".

The litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-00945), is currently before Judge Colm F. Connolly and Magistrate Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson. The asserted patents, as indicated by recent filings, include U.S. Patent No. 10,330,582, U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443, and U.S. Patent No. 12,174,107. U.S. Patent No. 10,330,582 generally describes a flow cytometer with a concave spherical mirror and an aberration compensation plate designed to reduce optical aberrations when imaging light scattered and fluoresced from particles. U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443 details a flow cytometer incorporating a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM), extended light source, various optical elements, a fluidic system, and a laser diode system for particle analysis. U.S. Patent No. 12,174,107 concerns methods and systems for detecting fluorescence and scatter from particles in a flow cytometer. While U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106 was initially listed in claim construction charts, more recent filings from Cytek for asserted prior art grounds do not include it, suggesting it may no longer be actively asserted.

This case is notable as a direct competitor dispute between two significant players in the biomedical and cell analysis instrument industry, specifically concerning advanced flow cytometry technology. The choice of the District of Delaware as the venue is strategic, as it is a leading forum for patent litigation known for its experienced judiciary and a relatively efficient path to trial, with Judge Connolly aiming for cases to be tried within two years. The litigation is also linked with parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Cytek Biosciences has filed Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against Beckman Coulter's patents, including IPR2025-01319 and PGR2025-00088, indicating a multi-front legal battle over these critical technologies.

The patent infringement case of Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc. (1:24-cv-00945) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware is currently active, with a jury trial scheduled for August 2026. The litigation has seen several key developments, including initial pleadings, claim construction proceedings, and parallel PTAB challenges.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-08-14: Beckman Coulter, Inc. filed its initial Complaint against Cytek Biosciences, Inc., alleging patent infringement.
  • 2025-01-09: Beckman Coulter filed a First Amended Complaint (D.I. 42), which included U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106 among the asserted patents.
  • Cytek Biosciences has filed a counterclaim for false patent marking. While the exact filing date of Cytek's Answer and Counterclaims is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the counterclaim was active by the time summary judgment motions were filed.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2024-08-14: Both parties filed various motions for summary judgment. Cytek moved for summary judgment of invalidity regarding other patents ('443 and '107) and non-infringement of specific claims ('582 patent), and also sought to preclude testimony from Beckman Coulter's experts regarding validity and willful infringement. Beckman Coulter filed motions for summary judgment concerning a "failure to mark defense" (related to Cytek's counterclaim) and "reverse doctrine of equivalents."
  • 2025-03-24: A teleconference was held with Magistrate Judge Tennyson to address Cytek's request for court-imposed claim narrowing. During this, Beckman Coulter indicated its willingness to reduce the number of asserted claims to 42.
  • 2025-06-11: A deadline was set for all motions to join other parties and amend or supplement pleadings.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Prior to a teleconference on March 24, 2025, Cytek Biosciences produced a significant volume of core technical documents, including over 8 megabytes of data, more than 1,000 documents, and over 11,000 pages, which encompassed detailed CAD files, service manuals, and engineering drawings.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2025-03-04: An amended scheduling order (D.I. 55) revised the deadlines for claim construction proceedings.
  • 2025-04-29: The deadline for the exchange of proposed claim terms.
  • 2025-05-14: The deadline for the exchange of claim construction issues and proposed claim constructions. On this date, Cytek served its proposed claim constructions, explicitly including terms from U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106.
  • 2025-08-21 & 2025-09-17: Markman hearings were held on these dates, as evidenced by transcripts referenced in related PTAB filings.

• Trial Events:

  • 2026-08-17: A jury trial is scheduled for this date. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred yet, as the trial is still pending.

• Final Disposition / Present Posture:

  • The case remains active, with the upcoming jury trial being the next major event.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • 2025-07-16: Cytek Biosciences, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01319) petition challenging at least one of Beckman Coulter's patents.
  • 2025-09-14: Cytek Biosciences, Inc. filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) petition against U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106, which was accorded a filing date of September 15, 2025.
  • Cytek also filed PGR2025-00088, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,174,107.
  • Exhibits in these PTAB proceedings, such as the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 42) and Markman hearing transcripts, indicate the close relationship and potential impact of these parallel proceedings on the district court litigation.

Note on Patent 12,174,106: While the initial case summary stated that U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106 was no longer being asserted, search results indicate that it was included in the First Amended Complaint (January 2025), was part of Cytek's proposed claim constructions (May 2025), and is the subject of a Post-Grant Review petition filed by Cytek (September 2025). This suggests that the patent was asserted and subject to active challenge as of September 2025.The patent infringement case of Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc. (1:24-cv-00945) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware is currently active, with a jury trial scheduled for August 2026. The litigation has seen several key developments, including initial pleadings, claim construction proceedings, and parallel PTAB challenges.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-08-14: Beckman Coulter, Inc. filed its initial Complaint against Cytek Biosciences, Inc., alleging patent infringement.
  • 2025-01-09: Beckman Coulter filed a First Amended Complaint (D.I. 42), which included U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106 among the asserted patents.
  • Cytek Biosciences has filed a counterclaim for false patent marking. While the exact filing date of Cytek's Answer and Counterclaims is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the counterclaim was active by the time summary judgment motions were filed.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2024-08-14: Both parties filed various motions for summary judgment. Cytek moved for summary judgment of invalidity regarding other patents ('443 and '107) and non-infringement of specific claims ('582 patent), and also sought to preclude testimony from Beckman Coulter's experts regarding validity and willful infringement. Beckman Coulter filed motions for summary judgment concerning a "failure to mark defense" (related to Cytek's counterclaim) and "reverse doctrine of equivalents."
  • 2025-03-24: A teleconference was held with Magistrate Judge Tennyson to address Cytek's request for court-imposed claim narrowing. During this, Beckman Coulter indicated its willingness to reduce the number of asserted claims to 42.
  • 2025-06-11: A deadline was set for all motions to join other parties and amend or supplement pleadings.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Prior to a teleconference on March 24, 2025, Cytek Biosciences produced a significant volume of core technical documents, including over 8 megabytes of data, more than 1,000 documents, and over 11,000 pages, which encompassed detailed CAD files, service manuals, and engineering drawings.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2025-03-04: An amended scheduling order (D.I. 55) revised the deadlines for claim construction proceedings.
  • 2025-04-29: The deadline for the exchange of proposed claim terms.
  • 2025-05-14: The deadline for the exchange of claim construction issues and proposed claim constructions. On this date, Cytek served its proposed claim constructions, explicitly including terms from U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106.
  • 2025-08-21 & 2025-09-17: Markman hearings were held on these dates, as evidenced by transcripts referenced in related PTAB filings.

• Trial Events:

  • 2026-08-17: A jury trial is scheduled for this date. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred yet, as the trial is still pending.

• Final Disposition / Present Posture:

  • The case remains active, with the upcoming jury trial being the next major event.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • 2025-07-16: Cytek Biosciences, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01319) petition challenging at least one of Beckman Coulter's patents.
  • 2025-09-14: Cytek Biosciences, Inc. filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) petition against U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106, which was accorded a filing date of September 15, 2025.
  • Cytek also filed PGR2025-00088, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,174,107.
  • Exhibits in these PTAB proceedings, such as the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 42) and Markman hearing transcripts, indicate the close relationship and potential impact of these parallel proceedings on the district court litigation.

Note on Patent 12,174,106: While the initial case summary stated that U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106 was no longer being asserted, search results indicate that it was included in the First Amended Complaint (January 2025), was part of Cytek's proposed claim constructions (May 2025), and is the subject of a Post-Grant Review petition filed by Cytek (September 2025). This suggests that the patent was asserted and subject to active challenge as of September 2025.

The following attorneys represent the plaintiff, Beckman Coulter, Inc., in Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00945, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware:

Richards, Layton & Finger P.A. (Wilmington, Delaware)

• Frederick L. Cottrell III (Counsel)
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Richards, Layton & Finger is a Delaware law firm, and Mr. Cottrell is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in a Delaware district court filing. The firm is well-regarded for its IP litigation practice and frequently serves as local counsel in complex patent litigation matters in Delaware.
• Kelly E. Farnan (Counsel)
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Farnan is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in a Delaware district court filing. She is involved in intellectual property litigation at the firm.
• Christine D. Haynes (Counsel)
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Haynes is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in a Delaware district court filing. She is also involved in intellectual property litigation at the firm.

While Richards, Layton & Finger P.A. frequently acts as local counsel in Delaware, the specific roles (e.g., lead vs. local counsel) for these individuals are not explicitly stated in the public docket entries or firm descriptions found, beyond being listed as "Attorneys for Plaintiff." However, given the firm's location and reputation, it is highly probable they serve as local counsel.

Please note that the search results also showed that Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP represents the defendant, Cytek Biosciences, Inc.

Here is the counsel of record representing Cytek Biosciences, Inc. in Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00945 (D. Del.):

Lead Counsel (Cooley LLP)

• Reuben H. Chen (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Chen is a partner and co-chair of Cooley's patent litigation practice. He has extensive experience representing technology and life sciences companies in patent litigation, including jury trials, bench trials, and appeals before the Federal Circuit, as well as proceedings before the PTAB. His experience includes work for clients like Google and Samsung.
• David Yun (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Yun is a partner at Cooley focusing on patent litigation across various technologies, including medical devices, software, and telecommunications. He has experience in federal district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB.
• Elizabeth M. Flanagan (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Experience Note: Ms. Flanagan is a partner at Cooley focusing on patent litigation, particularly in the life sciences, medical device, and software industries. She represents clients in district court litigation, ITC investigations, and PTAB proceedings.
• Dustin M. Knight (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Knight is a partner at Cooley specializing in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. He has represented both patent owners and petitioners in various technology fields, including an IPR filed by Cytek Biosciences.
• Adam Pivovar (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Pivovar is a partner at Cooley, focusing on patent litigation in federal district courts and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, particularly for technology and life sciences companies.
• Rosalynd D. Upton (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Upton is a partner at Cooley whose practice includes patent litigation in federal district courts and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

Local Counsel (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP)

• Karen Ann Jacobs (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Ms. Jacobs is a partner at Morris Nichols with over 35 years of litigation experience, primarily focused on patent infringement litigation before the District of Delaware. She has served in both lead and co-counsel roles and handles ANDA and biosimilar disputes.
• Jeremy A. Tigan (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Mr. Tigan is a partner at Morris Nichols, concentrating on intellectual property litigation. He is recognized for his work in complex patent disputes in the District of Delaware.
• Cameron P. Clark (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Mr. Clark is an attorney at Morris Nichols, whose practice involves intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware.