Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Tecan Genomics Inc.

Unified Patents PTAB Data, a member-based organization focused on deterring non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions and improving patent quality, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Tecan Genomics Inc.. Unified Patents seeks to reduce frivolous patent litigation by challenging the validity of patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Tecan Genomics Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of the Swiss-based Tecan Group, is a global provider of laboratory instruments and automated workflow solutions for life sciences, specializing in genomics applications, including next-generation sequencing (NGS) sample preparation, nucleic acid purification, and PCR setup. While the case involves U.S. Patent 11098357, a specific one-line technical sketch for this patent relevant to Tecan Genomics' specialized technology in biotechnology and organic chemistry (Tech Center 1600) could not be definitively sourced, and public patent databases show general descriptions for patent 11098357 as a "dry aging portable device," which appears unrelated to Tecan Genomics' core business.

The procedural posture of this matter is an IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00026, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The case is currently marked with a "Final Written Decision," indicating that the PTAB has issued a substantive ruling on the patent's validity. The panel judge assigned to this case is Deborah Katz. The PTAB serves as a critical venue for challenging patent validity, offering an alternative to district court litigation and reflecting Unified Patents' strategy to curb the assertion of potentially invalid patents, including those held by operating companies like Tecan Genomics.

This IPR is notable due to Unified Patents' consistent strategy of leveraging PTAB proceedings to challenge patents, typically those asserted by NPEs, though here it involves an operating company in the high-growth genomics and laboratory automation sector. The life sciences industry, particularly genomics, is characterized by extensive intellectual property, making challenges to patent validity impactful. The timing of the IPR, filed in late 2024 (for fiscal year 2025) and reaching a Final Written Decision in May 2026, falls within a period of significant policy shifts at the PTAB regarding discretionary denials and institution rates, adding a layer of contemporary relevance to the case's outcome.

IPR2025-00026: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case: Unified Patents PTAB Data v. Tecan Genomics Inc.
Case Number: IPR2025-00026
Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 11,098,357

This inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, initiated by Unified Patents PTAB Data against Tecan Genomics Inc., challenged the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,098,357. The case has concluded with a Final Written Decision.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing of Petition: Unified Patents PTAB Data filed the petition for inter partes review on October 10, 2024.
• Institution of IPR: The PTAB issued its decision to institute an IPR on the challenged patent claims on May 14, 2025.
• Final Written Decision: The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on May 12, 2026. The specific outcome regarding the patentability of the challenged claims in this decision is not detailed in the available information.

Unified Patents PTAB Data, as a petitioner in IPR proceedings, often utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and outside law firms for its cases. While specific counsel for IPR2025-00026 are not explicitly identified in the general search results, information about Unified Patents' typical legal team and practices can be inferred.

Unified Patents employs a team of in-house Senior Patent Counsel who are experienced in drafting and litigating post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. These in-house attorneys manage patent office proceedings internally, draft motions and briefs, and support senior attorneys with ongoing matters. They are noted for their experience in post-grant petitions (IPR, PGR) and reexaminations.

Some notable in-house counsel at Unified Patents, based on their publicly available profiles and involvement in other IPRs, include:

• Michelle Callaghan (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents, Washington, D.C. office): Michelle prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, she defended clients against patent demands in district courts and challenged patents before the PTAB at Erise IP.
• Jordan Rossen (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents, Washington, D.C. office): Jordan also prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. His previous experience includes intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings, where he represented clients before the PTAB, ITC, district courts, and Federal Circuit in various technology fields.
• David Seastrunk (Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents, Washington, D.C. office): David prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. Before Unified, he practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, litigating post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations.
• Kelly Hughes (In-house Counsel, Unified Patents): Kelly Hughes is identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in some ex parte reexamination proceedings.
• Alyssa Holtslander (In-house Counsel, Unified Patents): Alyssa Holtslander is also mentioned as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in some IPR proceedings.

Unified Patents also frequently works with outside counsel from prominent law firms for IPRs. For instance, in other IPRs, Unified Patents has been represented by attorneys from firms such as Haynes and Boone, LLP. While DLA Piper LLP is listed as "Petitioner's Counsel" in some PTAB cases, there is no direct evidence linking them to IPR2025-00026 specifically.

Given that the IPR petition for IPR2025-00026 was filed by Unified Patents PTAB Data on October 10, 2024, it is highly probable that a combination of their experienced in-house counsel and potentially an outside law firm handled the case, consistent with their established practice for PTAB challenges. However, without access to the specific docket for IPR2025-00026, the exact names of the attorneys of record for this particular case cannot be definitively stated. Filings for PTAB cases are typically publicly accessible, so specific counsel would be identifiable on the docket sheet for IPR2025-00026.

Tecan Genomics Inc. is represented by counsel from Goodwin Procter LLP and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP in IPR2025-00026, as well as related IPR proceedings and a district court case.

Here is the breakdown of counsel for Tecan Genomics Inc.:

Goodwin Procter LLP

• Linnea P. Cipriano - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Ms. Cipriano is a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 67,729) and has served as lead counsel for Tecan Genomics, Inc. in this and related IPR proceedings.
• Timothy J. Beavers - Back-up Counsel (provisionally recognized PTAB attorney).
  • Firm & Office Location: Goodwin Procter LLP (implied by association with Cipriano in the filing).
  • Note: Mr. Beavers was provisionally recognized for pro hac vice admission in this proceeding. His experience includes being recognized pro hac vice in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. v. Eye Therapies, LLC, IPR2024-00467.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Jeremy A. Tigan - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, likely in Delaware given the firm's location and its representation in a related district court case.
  • Note: Mr. Tigan is listed as counsel for Tecan Genomics, Inc. in a related district court patent infringement case, Tecan Genomics, Inc. v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC et al. (D. Del. Case # 1:23-cv-01115).
• Jack B. Blumenfeld - Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, likely in Delaware.
  • Note: Mr. Blumenfeld is also listed as counsel for Tecan Genomics, Inc. in the related district court case.