GE Healthcare Ltd. v. Johns Hopkins University

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) involves GE Healthcare Ltd. as the Petitioner and Johns Hopkins University as the Patent Owner. GE Healthcare Ltd. is a global medical technology, pharmaceutical diagnostics, and digital solutions innovator, providing a broad portfolio of products and services used in the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of patients, including advanced imaging systems like MRI, CT, and molecular imaging. Johns Hopkins University is a leading research institution that actively commercializes academic discoveries through its technology transfer office, Johns Hopkins Tech Ventures (JHTV), which manages its patent portfolio and licensing activities.

This IPR proceeding, designated IPR2026-00069, does not involve an accused product or service in the traditional sense of patent infringement litigation. Instead, GE Healthcare is challenging the patentability of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,201, owned by Johns Hopkins University, as being obvious over prior art. The '201 patent, titled "Radiopharmaceuticals for Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP)," describes low molecular weight compounds for radiopharmaceutical and optical imaging applications. These compounds feature a modular three-component structure (reporter moiety, linker, and targeting moiety) designed to selectively bind to Fibroblast Activation Protein-alpha (FAP-α).

The case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative tribunal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, having been filed on October 21, 2025, and subsequently instituted for review. The PTAB serves as a specialized venue for challenging patent validity through mechanisms like IPRs, offering a focused and expedited review by technically trained judges. This IPR is notable as it pits a major industry player in medical diagnostics against a prominent university's patented research in radiopharmaceuticals, highlighting the ongoing importance of patent validity in advanced medical imaging technologies. The institution of this IPR suggests the Board found a reasonable likelihood that GE Healthcare would prevail in showing claims 1-3 of the '201 patent are unpatentable. This proceeding also appears to be part of broader activity between the parties, with other related PTAB cases like IPR2025-00808 and PGR2025-00059 also involving GE Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent 11938201

This case primarily involves a series of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,938,201, owned by Johns Hopkins University. There is no identified parallel district court patent infringement litigation between GE Healthcare Ltd. and Johns Hopkins University regarding this patent. GE Healthcare Ltd. explicitly stated in its petition for IPR2026-00069 that no such litigation was pending, making discretionary denial under Fintiv inappropriate.

The legal developments for Patent 11,938,201 are as follows:

1. Post-Grant Review (PGR) Filing and Institution (PGR2025-00012)

• 2024-12-24: ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition, PGR2025-00012, challenging Patent 11,938,201.
• 2025-07-16: The PTAB instituted review for PGR2025-00012.

2. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Filing and Termination (IPR2025-00808)

• 2025-03-27: GE Healthcare Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00808, challenging Patent 11,938,201.
• 2025-07-22: IPR2025-00808 was terminated-settled via a pre-institution settlement. The parties, GE Healthcare Ltd. and Johns Hopkins University, filed a joint motion to terminate without prejudice. This termination was made with the understanding that GE Healthcare could file a subsequent petition concerning the '201 patent after the conclusion of co-pending PGR2025-00012.

3. PGR Settlement and Termination (PGR2025-00012)

• 2025-10-16: PGR2025-00012, filed by ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE, was terminated due to a settlement.

4. Current Inter Partes Review Filing and Institution (IPR2026-00069)

• 2025-10-21: GE Healthcare Ltd. filed the current Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00069, challenging claims 1-3 of Patent 11,938,201. The petition asserted that claims 1-3 are obvious over prior art, specifically US-633, Meletta, and Jansen, and also over US-121 and Jansen.
• Early 2026 (exact date not specified, but occurred prior to 2026-05-15): The PTAB instituted review for IPR2026-00069. The status provided in the case details confirms it is "Pending - Instituted". While an exact institution date is not explicitly found in the provided search snippets, similar IPRs from late 2025 and early 2026 were seeing institution decisions around February 2026.

Outcome:
As of 2026-05-15, IPR2026-00069 is in the "Pending - Instituted" phase. The challenged claims 1-3 of Patent 11,938,201 are currently under review by the PTAB for obviousness. There is no active patent infringement litigation in district court between GE Healthcare Ltd. and Johns Hopkins University concerning this patent.

To identify the counsel of record for GE Healthcare Ltd. in IPR2026-00069, it is necessary to consult the specific docket entries for the case, particularly the Power of Attorney (Docket 4). While general in-house counsel for GE Healthcare include individuals like Greg Threadgill (Lead Patent Counsel) and Frank Jimenez (Vice President & General Counsel), the counsel of record for an IPR proceeding are typically external law firms.

As of the current date, specific external counsel representing GE Healthcare Ltd. in IPR2026-00069 have not been explicitly identified in the provided search results beyond the mention of a "Power Of Attorney (Dkt. 4)" in the case docket. Further direct examination of that docket entry would be required to name the specific attorneys and their firms.

However, prior PTAB proceedings involving GE Healthcare Ltd. suggest they engage with firms specializing in patent litigation. For instance, an earlier IPR (IPR2025-00808) filed by GE Healthcare Ltd. concerning the same patent (11938201) was terminated. While the counsel for that specific terminated IPR is not named, other general searches indicate firms like DLA Piper LLP have represented petitioners in PTAB cases. Without direct access to the Power of Attorney (Docket 4) for IPR2026-00069, specific attorneys and their firms cannot be definitively identified at this time.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, I was unable to definitively identify the external counsel of record representing Johns Hopkins University in IPR2026-00069 directly from publicly available web search results, such as the full content of the "Power Of Attorney (Dkt. 4)" docket entry. While the existence of this document is noted, its contents, specifically the names of the attorneys and their firms, were not extracted in the provided snippets.

However, based on general information regarding Johns Hopkins University's legal team, the following in-house counsel handle patent and intellectual property matters:

• Nick Tymoczko - Associate General Counsel, Johns Hopkins University.
  • Firm: Johns Hopkins University Office of the Vice President and General Counsel, Baltimore, MD.
  • Relevant Experience: Prior to joining Johns Hopkins, Nick was an associate at Paul Hastings LLP, focusing on complex patent litigation and intellectual property disputes. He also worked at Hogan Lovells US LLP as a general litigation and intellectual property associate.
• Guido Galvez - Patent Counsel, Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.
  • Firm: Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, Baltimore, MD.
• Louisa Salomon - Patent Counsel, Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.
  • Firm: Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, Baltimore, MD.
• Laura Mitchell - Director Intellectual Property Management, Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.
  • Firm: Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, Baltimore, MD.

It is important to note that while these individuals are involved in Johns Hopkins University's intellectual property matters, the specific external legal team representing them in IPR2026-00069 could not be determined without direct access to the official PTAB docket document (Dkt. 4).