US 11402378

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me search for the specific claims, abstract, and any litigation/docket references.

Let me check for litigation/docket activity and confirm the abstract text.

Search coverage / caveats

I searched Google Patents, Justia Patents, and general web sources for the exact identifier 11402378 / US11402378B2. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket entry, appeal, or IPR tied to this patent number in the queries run — so I cannot confirm any 2026 Federal Circuit activity, and I won't invent one. I also could not retrieve a full verbatim claim set; the claim language below is reconstructed from the authoritative full text you supplied plus indexed claim excerpts (Google Patents, Justia). Where I am inferring rather than reading, I say so.

Also note the record contains some internal inconsistencies in the machine-generated fields (e.g., several reassignment entries carried later/future-looking dates and one garbled "SAP/growth-regulated alpha protein" definition). I report the fields literally and flag the oddities rather than correcting them.

---

Bibliographic summary (US 11,402,378 B2)

Related family members surfaced in searching include WO2015191423A1, CA3021343C, US20220057395A1, US20210208139A1, and US20250164480A1 (a later continuation with the same title/inventors).

---

Abstract

I do not have a verbatim abstract string for this patent from the authoritative text you provided (the Google Patents page body you supplied reproduces the "Definitions"/description, not the abstract block). The closely related continuation (US20250164480) carries this abstract, which is consistent with this family's disclosure and is likely substantively equivalent — but treat the wording as unverified for 11,402,378 itself:

"Provided herein are methods for assessing response to inflammatory disease therapy. The methods include performing immunoassays to generate scores based on quantitative data for expression of biomarkers relating to inflammatory biomarkers to assess disease activity in inflammatory diseases, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis. Also provided are uses of inflammatory biomarkers for guiding treatment decisions."

(Source: wikipatents entry for 20250164480, the continuation of this family.)

---

Plain-language overview of the claims

General thrust. The patent claims a laboratory/software workflow in which a blood sample is run through immunoassay(s) to quantify a defined panel of protein biomarkers, the resulting quantitative dataset is fed into an "interpretation function" (typically a trained predictive model), and the output is a Biomarker Disease Activity Score (BDAS) used to gauge rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity, presence/absence of RA, or risk of radiographic progression/flare/joint damage — and, by extension, to guide therapy decisions.

Independent claim 1 (as excerpted). A method comprising:

1. performing at least one immunoassay on a blood sample from the subject to generate a dataset with protein-level data for at least seven protein markers drawn from a large enumerated set (SAP, CPSD, TIG2, A1M, Hp, PEDF, CLU, tPA, CRP, MCP-4, AGP-1, C-Peptide, CFH, PARC, GRO-alpha, SHBG, MMP-7, GDF-15, FGF-21, ANGPTL3, HPX, FAS, RAGE, CD5L, ENG, VWF, Apo C-III, IL-1ra, FCN3, Prx-IV, ST2, SORT1, Tweak, PSAT, HB-EGF, IL-8, B2M, Apo E, uPA, ADM, uPAR, TN, ESEL, MIG, GLP-1 total, IL-12p40, COMP, Apo H, F7, ITAC, ALP, TARC, PAI-1, IL-15, CP, CFHR1, DJ-1, AFP, HCC-4, FRTN, IgA, TAFI, CSTB, AACT, PPP, HSP-70, TFR1, THP, TN-C, PG1, HGF, RANTES, TNFR2, M-CSF, AB-40, cystatin-C, TIMP-3, IGFBP4, GIP, MDK, ANG, SCF, MPIF-1, OPG, CD40, MCP-2, IGFBP-1, VKDPS, HGFR, BDNF, MSP, MCP-1);
2. wherein the at least seven markers include TIG2, PEDF, CPSD, SAP, C-Peptide, tPA, and FAS (a mandatory seven-marker core); and
3. generating an RA disease-activity score from the dataset using an interpretation function, and producing an assessment of RA disease activity.

Other independent claims. The specification describes four method families — (a) assessing RA disease activity, (b) determining presence/absence of RA, (c) predicting radiographic progression, flare, or joint damage in an RA subject, and (d) generating nucleic acid/protein-level data — each sharing the same immunoassay → dataset → interpretation-function architecture. From the indexed claim listing, I can verify only that claim 4 is an independent claim (claims 5 and 7 depend from it): claim 5 recites the subject has one or more of RA radiographic progression, flare, or joint damage; claim 7 adds one or more of SHBG, A1M, AGP-1, CD5L, CRP, PSAT, uPA, GIP, Prx-IV, HGF, and IL-15 to the seven-marker core.

Uncertainty flag: I cannot confirm from the retrieved material whether the granted patent contains three, four, or more independent claims, nor the exact preamble wording of claims 2–N. The above is accurate as to claim 1's requirements and claim 4's role as an independent claim, but I am not asserting a verified full claim set. Anyone relying on this for a freedom-to-operate or validity view should pull the granted claims directly from USPTO PatentCenter or the USPTO full-text database.

---

Enforcement / docket note

No CAFC 2026 appeal docket entry for 11402378 appeared in my searches. The patent is listed as active with an adjusted expiration of 2037-10-12, and the reassignment history in the record shows the Crescendo Bioscience → Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings chain typical of the Vectra/BDAS RA biomarker franchise. If your purpose is litigation monitoring specifically, I'd recommend a direct query in the CAFC docket system and PACER/RECAP using the patent number as a keyword, since my web searches did not surface case-level results.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11402378.

Initial results pulled mostly false positives (e.g., patent 11,141,378 in Acuitas v. Genevant, and an unrelated Zenodo record). Let me search dedicated litigation databases.

Results are still dominated by unrelated patents and unrelated Labcorp litigations. Let me go directly to patent-litigation databases.

Bottom line

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,402,378 was found. Based on the searches I ran, I could not identify any district court case, Federal Circuit appeal, PTAB proceeding, or ITC action in which US 11,402,378 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue. I cannot rule out that litigation exists but is not indexed in the sources reachable by my search tools — see the caveats below.

What I searched

I queried for the specific number in both formats ("11402378" and "11,402,378") in combination with litigation-related terms (patent infringement, complaint, lawsuit, docket, defendant) and targeted the types of sources you specified (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia dockets, PACER-derived records, drugpatentwatch, and general web). The calls were inconclusive or returned only false positives.

False positives I ruled out (do not rely on these)

These appeared in results but concern different patents, so they are not responsive:

Note: Labcorp (and its predecessor-in-interest Crescendo Bioscience) is a frequent patent litigant, and its SEC disclosures describe numerous matters — but none of those disclosures or decisions identify US 11,402,378.

Patent identity check (to confirm I was looking for the right thing)

Per the authoritative patent text provided, US 11,402,378 B2 ("Biomarkers and methods for assessing response to inflammatory disease therapy"):

• Application No. 16/164,297; filed 2018-10-18
• Priority date: 2016-04-20; granted 2022-08-02; adjusted expiration 2037-10-12; status Active
• Inventors: Paul Scott Eastman; William Manning
• Original assignee: Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings; current assignee Labcorp Holdings Inc (with recorded assignments to/from Crescendo Bioscience)
• Subject matter: immunoassay-based biomarker panels (e.g., SAP, CPSD, TIG2, A1M, Hp, PEDF, CLU, tPA, CRP, etc.) and BDAS scores for RA disease activity
• Related family members noted: US20190049443A1, US20220057395A1, US20250164480A1

Caveats and how to confirm definitively

I want to be explicit about the limits of this answer, because "no results found" is a weaker claim than "no litigation exists":

1. Search tools, not a primary docket check. My searches rely on aggregated/third-party indexes. These frequently lag PACER, omit sealed complaints, and sometimes do not parse patent numbers that appear only inside exhibits.
2. Litigation may exist that isn't indexed. A case filed recently, settled early, sealed, or filed in a less-indexed venue could be absent from the results.
3. Recommended primary-source confirmations:
   • PACER / CourtListener RECAP "party" and "document" searches for "11,402,378" (RECAP's full-text search of complaints is the best free proxy).
   • USPTO Patent Center → "Litigation" / "Patent Examination Data" and the USPTO Assignment record for reel/frame history.
   • Unified Patents litigation portal case-list search by patent number (my site-restricted query returned nothing).
   • PTAB/Edison search for IPR/PGR/CBM challenges to the '378 patent.
   • Labcorp and Crescendo Bioscience SEC 10-K risk-factor disclosures (they enumerate material IP matters) — my searches of those documents named other patents only.
   • A Lex Machina / Docket Navigator patent-number query, which would be conclusive.

If you'd like, I can run additional targeted searches against specific docket databases or the patent's family members (e.g., US20190049443A1) to check for litigation involving the same family.

Answer to your question as posed: no known litigation involving US patent 11,402,378 was identified; the specific cases that surfaced involve different patent numbers and should not be attributed to this patent.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before writing this up.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks to confirm the absence of proceedings.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,402,378: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block reports no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on file against this patent, and my independent web checks found no petition, institution decision, FWD, or PTAB appeal naming 11,402,378 as the challenged patent. The breakdown is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. Defensive posture: the patent has never been tested at the Board. Its claims stand exactly as issued on 2022-08-02 — nothing has been canceled, nothing has been narrowed, and no petitioner has handed you a free invalidity roadmap. That cuts both ways: you get no ready-made invalidity judgment to lean on, but you also get a clean slate with no estoppel and no statutory bar inherited from anyone else.

One caveat worth stating up front, because it is the single most likely source of error a defendant's counsel will make: Labcorp is a prolific PTAB petitioner on other people's patents. Its name appears in IPR2021-01026, IPR2021-00902, IPR2021-01054, and IPR2021-0154 against Ravgen, Inc.'s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,332,277 and 7,727,720 (non-invasive prenatal testing), litigated through to Federal Circuit affirmances at Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc., Nos. 23-1342/-1345 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2025) and No. 23-1517 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025). Searching "Labcorp IPR" and finding those is not PTAB activity on 11,402,378 — different patents, different technology, and Labcorp lost every one of them at the Board and on appeal. Do not import those rulings into this patent's analysis.

Because there are no proceedings to profile, the balance of this memo is the strategic picture and a set of next steps.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of 11,402,378 is UNTESTED. There is no canceled claim, no sustained claim, and no claim whose construction or scope has been settled by an administrative tribunal. The patent issued 2022-08-02 from Application No. 16/164,297 (filed 2018-10-18), claiming priority to 2016-04-20, with inventors Paul Scott Eastman and William Manning, original assignee Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, and a current assignee/expiration string of Labcorp Holdings Inc. / adjusted expiration 2037-10-12. All post-grant narrowing that could have occurred has simply not occurred. Note also the assignment history in the structured data: rights moved Cryo/Crescendo Bioscience → Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (recorded 2021-10-06), so a defendant asserting an ownership or standing theory should pull the full chain from USPTO Assignment rather than relying on the front-page assignee.

Estoppel landscape. No § 315(e) or § 325(e) estoppel attaches to anyone on this patent, because no trial was instituted. That is a genuinely favorable posture for a defendant: there is no prior petitioner whose privies are barred, no "grounds raised or reasonably could have raised" overlay from an earlier IPR, and no risk that a co-defendant's earlier petition burned a reference for you. Conversely, plaintiff faces no adverse estoppel either, but that matters less — patent owners rarely rely on PTAB estoppel defensively.

Timing and gate questions you must resolve before filing anything. Two statutory windows are relevant and they point in opposite directions:

• PGR is almost certainly unavailable. Under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c), a PGR petition must be filed within nine months of grant. Grant was 2022-08-02, so the PGR window closed on or about 2023-05-02. Absent a reissue, PGR is off the table. (The priority date of 2016-04-20 means the application was filed pre-AIA-FITF in relevant part, but regardless — the window has run.)
• IPR remains available, subject to § 315(b). A petitioner served with a complaint alleging infringement of 11,402,378 more than one year before filing is time-barred. If your client has been served, count the days precisely; the § 315(b) clock is jurisdictional in practice and unforgiving. If your client has not been served and has not filed a DJ action, filing proactively avoids the bar but invites a Declaratory Judgment Act standing fight if the patent owner can argue no "substantial controversy" has ripened.

Pattern signals. Against this patent specifically: none. There is no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar entity) visible in the record, and no patent-owner appeal activity, because there is nothing to appeal. What does exist is a cluster of continuation filings in the same family — US 20220057395A1 (from App. No. 17/464,110, priority claim recorded 2021-09-01) and US 20250164480A1 (from App. No. 19/027,907, priority claim recorded 2025-01-17), plus counterpart EP 3446127 A2 and WO 2017/184726 in the same family. That family structure is the most consequential strategic fact here, and it cuts against a defendant: challenging only 11,402,378 may be whack-a-mole. A continuation can present claims of overlapping scope, and a successful IPR on the parent does not necessarily eliminate the family's assertion capacity. Any invalidity or licensing strategy should be scoped against the whole family, not just this one number.

Why the absence of IPRs is itself a signal. Well-asserted diagnostic patents attract IPRs. A biomarker-panel patent owned by a large reference laboratory and never challenged at the Board suggests either (a) it has not been asserted in a way that provoked a well-funded defendant, or (b) the claim scope is narrow enough — the independent claims recite performing an immunoassay on a blood sample for at least two markers drawn from long enumerated Markush-style lists, then applying an interpretation function to produce an RA disease activity score — that defendants have preferred district-court invalidity (e.g., § 101 subject-matter attacks on the diagnostic correlation) over an IPR, which cannot reach § 101. That distinction matters enormously to you. The statutory basis available in an IPR is limited to § 102 and § 103 "based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications" (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). § 112 enablement/written description and § 101 eligibility challenges — historically the live issues for diagnostic-method claims of this type — are not available in an IPR. If your invalidity theory is primarily eligibility-based, an IPR is the wrong vehicle and you should say so before someone files one and wastes twelve months and six figures.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative directly, contemporaneously, and in writing. Pull the PTAB E2E / PTAB Patent Trial APIs and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's public decisions index for "11,402,378" as of your filing date, and preserve the search output. Because I am reporting an absence, you should not rely on this memo alone — the ODP ingest can lag. A same-day screen capture of the Board's docket showing no proceedings is what you actually want in the file.

2. Do not plan an IPR around § 101 or § 112. Section 311(b) confines IPR grounds to § 102/§ 103 over patents and printed publications. If your best theory against the two-marker immunoassay + interpretation-function claims is that they are directed to a natural correlation (the classic Mayo/Alice diagnostic problem), that argument lives in district court, not at the Board. Sequence accordingly: consider whether a district-court § 101 motion or an IPR on § 103 grounds (e.g., biomarker panel + statistical modeling references) is the better lead attack — and note that the specification's own Examples (316 proteins screened via Myriad/RBM DiscoveryMAP v3.3, InFoRM cohort, DAS28ESR comparison) are potential § 103 springboards, so mine that disclosure for admissions about what was known.

3. Check the § 315(b) clock today if your client has been served. One-year bar from service of a complaint alleging infringement. If the deadline is imminent, a protective petition (even if you ultimately prefer district court) preserves the option; the Board's discretionary-denial practice under § 314(a)/Fintiv is a separate question you can brief.

4. Scope the whole family before you scope your challenge. Identify and docket every live member — US 20220057395A1, US 20250164480A1, EP 3446127 A2, WO 2017/184726 — and map claim scope overlap against 11,402,378. A petition that invalidates the parent but leaves a co-pending continuation with materially identical claims is a partial win.

5. Verify the assignment and expiration chain. Confirm the 2020-11-23 (Crescendo Bioscience, per the record) and 2021-10-06 (Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings) recorded assignments, the identity of the current owner of record, and the 2037-10-12 adjusted expiration including any PTA/PTE. Standing and real-party-in-interest errors are the most common self-inflicted wounds in IPR petitions, and this patent's assignment history shows at least one intervening transfer of the inventors' interests.

6. If you do file, name the right real parties in interest. With no prior proceeding, there is no existing RPI identification to inherit or fight about — which means any defect is entirely yours to avoid under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).

Bottom line for a defendant: the patent has never been to the PTAB, so nothing is canceled and nothing is settled. There is no FWD to cite and no claim you can call dead. Your invalidity case must be built from scratch, and the choice of forum — IPR (§ 102/§ 103 only) versus district court (§ 101/§ 112 available) — is the first and most important decision, not an afterthought.

I'll ground this on the authoritative patent text first, then try to pull assignment-center details and corporate context via search.

Let me try to pin down actual reel/frame and correspondent data, and confirm the corporate chain.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 11,402,378 B2

Data-availability caveat up front. I could not reach USPTO Assignment Center content for this patent in this session: the Assignment Center UI (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and the legacy index (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are session-driven and did not return indexable records, and targeted searches for reel/frame numbers returned nothing. No reel/frame number, execution date, correspondent attorney, or correspondent address for US 11,402,378 appears anywhere in the material I could retrieve. The assignment rows below are taken from the Google Patents legal-events table in the authoritative patent text you supplied, which gives assignor/assignee/conveyance but not reel/frame or correspondent. I am reporting the gap rather than filling it. Anyone acting on this should pull reel/frame and correspondent directly from Assignment Center before relying on Section 3 of the NPE analysis.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Only two inventors on a diagnostics-biomarker portfolio. Both executed inventor→company assignments to Crescendo Bioscience, Inc., the operating subsidiary — not to the ultimate parent. That is the normal, unremarkable structure for a subsidiary-developed assay portfolio and is not a fire-sale tell on its own.
• The 2020-11-23 inventor-assignment recording lands roughly two years after the 2018-10-18 filing and roughly 11 months before the Crescendo→LabCorp transfer. Late-but-pre-transaction perfection of the inventor chain is consistent with a seller cleaning title ahead of an asset sale. I flag this as an inference from sequencing, not a documented fact — the underlying execution date is not in the sources I could reach.
• I cannot substantiate an "all inventors depart within 12 months" pattern. No employment-termination data is retrievable for either inventor, and I will not infer it from the ownership chain.

---

Original assignee

The authoritative patent text states, in the Google Patents header:

• Original Assignee: Laboratory Corp of America Holdings
• Current Assignee: Labcorp Holdings Inc

I regard the "original assignee" field as unreliable here and flag the conflict. The recorded 2020-11-23 assignment runs from the inventors to Crescendo Bioscience, Inc., and the public corporate record puts Crescendo (not LabCorp) as the Vectra developer and the 2014–2021 owner via Myriad. Myriad's 2019 Form 10-K describes "Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. (now our wholly-owned subsidiary)" and its OMRF license covering "what is now Vectra testing." The reading most consistent with the evidence is that Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. was the filing-time applicant/owner, and Google's "original assignee" label reflects the assignee as indexed after the 2021 LabCorp transfer. This should be confirmed from the face of the patent and from Assignment Center reel/frame 1.

Did the assignee ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — substantially.

• Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. (founded July 2002, South San Francisco) commercialized Vectra® DA, a quantitative multi-protein blood test for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity — the closest commercial embodiment of the "biomarker disease activity score" (BDAS) subject matter in this specification. Crescendo was ranked #2 fastest-growing healthcare company in North America on Deloitte's 2013 Technology Fast 500; it tested 27,000 RA patient samples in Q4 2013.
• Myriad Genetics, Inc. acquired Crescendo in February 2014 for ~$270 million, keeping it as a wholly-owned subsidiary.
• LabCorp acquired the Vectra test and related IP from Myriad for $150 million in cash, announced Q2 2021 and closing in Q3 2021 — which aligns with the recorded 2021-10-06 reassignment. LabCorp (including its Dianon/Esoterix/Integrated Oncology lines) is a large commercial clinical reference laboratory, NYSE: LH.
• Current status: Operating. LabCorp is a going concern; the current-assignee field reflects Labcorp Holdings Inc., the holdco resulting from LabCorp's corporate reorganization. I could not confirm the reorganization mechanics or effective date through search in this session, so treat the holdco step as unverified. Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. persists as a legacy subsidiary name; Myriad exited the autoimmune diagnostics business with the Vectra sale.

Adjacent non-IP context worth knowing (not an NPE signal): Myriad/Crescendo settled a False Claims Act qui tam suit (United States ex rel. STF, LLC v. Crescendo Bioscience, Inc., N.D. Cal. 3:16-cv-02043) for $48 million in 2021, over Vectra DA billing. This is a commercial-liability event, not a patent-transfer event, but it is part of why the Vectra asset moved.

---

Assignment timeline

Four reassignment events are indexed against US 11,402,378 in the Google Patents legal-events table. Reel/frame and correspondent are not retrievable from these records; they are recorded below as "not retrieved," not as blank.

1. Recorded 2020-11-23 — execution date not retrieved

• Reel/Frame: not retrieved — pull from Assignment Center
• Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
• Assignor: EASTMAN, PAUL SCOTT; MANNING, WILLIAM
• Assignee: CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE (Crescendo Bioscience, Inc.)
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Internal perfection of the inventor→operating-subsidiary chain, recorded ~2 years post-filing and shortly before the asset sale; consistent with title clean-up ahead of a divestiture (inference, not documented).

2. Recorded 2021-10-06 — execution date not retrieved

• Reel/Frame: not retrieved
• Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
• Assignor: CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE, INC.
• Assignee: LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
• Correspondent: not retrieved. Flag: this is the highest-value correspondent question in the chain — the recording firm here is the one that ran the $150M Vectra asset purchase, and it is the link worth checking for recurrence across LabCorp's acquired-portfolio recordings.
• Context: Acquisition / corporate divestiture — transfer to LabCorp as part of Myriad's $150M cash sale of the Vectra DA assay and related IP; the recordation date sits inside the announced Q3-2021 closing window.

3. Recorded 2026-03-05 — apparent duplicate of Event 2

• Reel/Frame: not retrieved
• Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
• Assignor: CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE, INC.
• Assignee: LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Apparent duplicate legal-event row. Same parties, same conveyance, no distinguishing reel/frame given. Likely a Google Patents indexing artifact or a re-recordation; I cannot tell which without reel numbers. Do not treat this as an independent third transfer.

4. Recorded 2026-03-05 — apparent duplicate of Event 1

• Reel/Frame: not retrieved
• Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
• Assignor: EASTMAN, PAUL SCOTT; MANNING, WILLIAM
• Assignee: CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Apparent duplicate legal-event row of Event 1, same pairing as the other 2026-03-05 entry.

Related-family caution (relevant to standing analysis, not to this chain): a continuation was filed 2021-09-01 as US 2022/0057395 A1, and a further filing US 2025/0164480 A1 on 2025-01-17. The 2021-09-01 continuation was filed about five weeks before the 2021-10-06 LabCorp recordation. Confirm that the assignment record for the sibling continuations tracks this one — a split in the continuation family would be a chain-of-title problem, not an NPE signal.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402378
    2014 : Myriad acquires Crescendo Bioscience
    2016 : Priority date for the family
    2018 : Application filed
    2020 : Inventors assign to Crescendo Bioscience
    2021 : Crescendo assigns to LabCorp
         : Vectra asset sale closes
         : Continuation filed
    2022 : Patent issued as US 11402378
    2026 : Duplicate reassignment rows indexed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No intermediate "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears. The chain runs operating subsidiary → operating clinical laboratory: Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. → Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (recorded 2021-10-06). LabCorp is a public company (NYSE: LH) with an actual commercial laboratory business, not a licensing vehicle. The presence of "Holdings" in LabCorp's legal name is a legacy corporate-naming artifact, not a shell indicator.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither prior nor current assignee matches any entity on the referenced NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Crescendo, Myriad, and LabCorp are all practising diagnostics companies. Caveat: I could not query RPX or Unified Patents asserter directories in this session, so this is a no-match against the lists you supplied plus general knowledge, not an exhaustive directory check.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / INSUFFICIENT DATA.
This is the one signal I genuinely cannot adjudicate, because the correspondent-of-record field is absent from every row I retrieved. I will not substitute a name.

• Non-probative adjacent data point, explicitly flagged as such: the trademark registration for CRESCENDO BIOSCIENCE (Reg. 3959414, owner now shown as Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings) lists a correspondence contact at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 1001 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem NC. That is a trademark correspondence record, not a patent-assignment correspondent, and Kilpatrick Townsend is a large general-practice firm that does substantial operating-company patent prosecution. Even if the same firm were confirmed on the patent assignment rows, a single firm appearance is not a finding under your recurrence test.
• What would make this a finding: the same named attorney appearing as correspondent on both the 2020-11-23 and 2021-10-06 recordations, or on the LabCorp recordings for other patents acquired from Myriad. That requires reel/frame pulls.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Two substantive links over roughly 11 months (inventor→company, then company→LabCorp), one of which is the routine inventor assignment. Not a chain of LLCs, no shared registered-agent address is documented, and the two 2026-03-05 rows are duplicates rather than a third and fourth hop.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming US 11,402,378 is surfaced in the material I could retrieve. LabCorp is an active patent litigant in its own right — it asserted sequencing patents against Qiagen (D. Del., filed 2018; $4.7M jury verdict 2021, later reversed by the Federal Circuit in August 2025) and was a defendant in Ravgen v. Labcorp (W.D. Tex., $373M verdict 2022, later expanded toward $400M on appeal) — but none of that involves this patent, and LabCorp in those cases was an operating company practising the technology, not an NPE. The 2021-10-06 recordation is tied to a product acquisition, not to a complaint.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
Myriad Genetics was not in bankruptcy. The Vectra/IP transfer was a strategic divestiture of a non-core, revenue-stagnant asset for $150M cash after Medicare coverage friction and payor-contracting difficulty. That is an ordinary portfolio pruning, categorically different from a Chapter 7/11 §363 sale (Kodak, Nortel, Polaroid).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
The direction of travel is the opposite of privateering: an operating diagnostics company (Myriad) sold the asset to another operating diagnostics company (LabCorp) that wanted to sell the test, expressly to become "a single-source diagnostics solution for RA providers." No back-license, no assertion-for-the-benefit-of-the-transferor structure is documented.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at LabCorp, which actively markets and practices the assay. The patent is not neutralized.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is short, fully explained by the diagnostics industry's own M&A, and terminates at a practising operating company: inventors → Crescendo Bioscience, Inc. (recorded 2020-11-23) → Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (recorded 2021-10-06), the latter matching Myriad's $150M cash sale of the Vectra DA assay and related IP to LabCorp in Q3 2021. Every commercialised use of the claimed subject matter is documented — Crescendo's Vectra DA, then Myriad's, now LabCorp's — so the "operating company ships the product" prong is met on the facts, and not one of the eight NPE signals is present on the evidence available. The one honest qualification is that the "assertion" prong is unverified for this specific patent: I found no suit naming US 11,402,378, and I could not retrieve reel/frame or correspondent data, so signal 3 (repeat correspondent) remains unclear rather than resolved. That gap does not change the verdict — it is a title-perfection detail, not an NPE indicator, on a chain with no shell entity, no aggregator, and no bankruptcy.

Verification links:

• Assignment Center (search by patent number 11402378 to retrieve reel/frame and correspondent): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy assignment index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Patent document of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11402378B2](/patent/US11402378B2)/en

I'll research US patent 11402378 and its cited prior art. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me get the actual citation lists from patent databases.

Let me try to locate the patent family and its citation lists more directly.

1. Patent identification (verified)

I performed the requested search. The number resolves to a single, specific US patent, and I did not encounter any legitimate alternative document bearing that number in the US series.

Literal-ID caution (this is exactly why the "do not auto-correct" rule matters): a search for the bare string "11402378" also surfaces JP 11402378 A, a 1977 Japanese application for a safety toe piece for a ski binding (https://patents.google.com/patent/JPS5498832A/en). Same numeric string, entirely unrelated subject matter. The string must be qualified by jurisdiction and series (US 11,402,378 B2), which I have done.

2. Critical limitation on this request — I must state it plainly

I could not retrieve the actual "(56) References Cited" list for US 11,402,378 B2, and the authoritative full text you supplied does not include it (the supplied document ends mid-Example 1 and contains no front-page citation tables, no IDS listing, and no examiner citation list).

My searches were run against Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Wikipedia/Wikipatents, and general web sources. The queries returned:

• the patent's specification text (as you supplied it),
• unrelated international search reports (PCT/US2012/061402; PCT/IB2011/052773; PCT/EP2012/060239; PCT/US2015/160985) covering entirely different technologies,
• OCR-mangled tables from other unrelated cases.

I did not obtain a single verified patent citation, examiner citation, or IDS entry that is attributable to US 11,402,378 B2. Under my operating rules I will not fabricate a citation list or assign § 102 rejections to references I cannot confirm were cited in this patent. The numbered items below are therefore divided into (A) what is genuinely grounded in the record I have, and (B) what is explicitly flagged as unverified.

3. References that ARE grounded in the record (from the patent text itself)

These are the only references I can attribute to this patent with confidence, because they appear in the specification you supplied. Note that most are incorporated by reference (i.e., they are applicant's own antecedent work / background), which is legally distinct from being cited as prior art:

3.1 Internal/patent references incorporated by reference (specification, "Machine-readable storage medium" and data-management sections):

• US 2002/0038227 A1; US 2004/0122296 A1; US 2004/0122297 A1; US 5,018,067 — cited as examples of health-related data management systems.
• US 5,744,305 — cited for substrate arrays ("chip").
• US 2011/0137851 A1 — cited in the sibling publication (US 2019/0049443 A1) as: "Recent advances in assessing inflammatory disease activity and progression are described in US 2011/0137851, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety." This is the Crescendo Bioscience precedent application on multi-biomarker disease-activity assessment and is the most legally significant internal reference for a § 102/§ 103 analysis, because incorporation by reference makes it effectively part of the disclosure.

3.2 Non-patent literature cited in the specification (grounded, listed with their specification roles):

• S. Banerjee et al., Am. J. Cardiol. 2008, 101(8):1201–1205; E. Baecklund et al., Arth. Rheum. 2006, 54(3):692–701; N. Goodson et al., Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2005, 64(11):1595–1601 — RA comorbidity background.
• M. L. L. Prevoo et al., Arth. Rheum. 1995, 38(1):44–48; A. M. van Gestel et al., Arth. Rheum. — DAS definition.
• F. C. Breedveld et al., Arth. Rheum. 2006, 54(1):26–37 — radiographic vs. clinical benefit.
• D. T. Felson et al., Arth. Rheum. 1993, 36(6):729–740 and 1995, 38(6):727–735 (ACR criteria); D. Aletaha et al., Arth. Rheum. 2005, 52(9):2625–2636 (CDAI); A. M. van Gestel et al., Arth. Rheum. 1998, 41(10):1845–1850; G. Stucki et al., Arth. Rheum. (RADAI); J. S. Smolen et al., Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003, 42:244–257 (SDAI).
• M. Van Leeuwen et al., Br. J. Rheum. 1993, 32(suppl.):9–13; R. Mallya et al., J. Rheum. 1982, 9(2):224–228; F. Wolfe, J. Rheum. 1997, 24:1477–1485 — CRP as an ESR alternative.
• L. Breiman and J. H. Friedman, J. Royal Stat. Soc. B 1997, 59(1):3–54 — Curds and Whey modelling.
• R. Vasan, Circulation 2006, 113(19):2335–2362 — biomarker evaluation.
• U. Wirth et al., Proteomics 2002, 2(10):1445–1451 — MALDI-TOF post-translational modification detection.
• Standard texts (T. Creighton, Proteins; A. Lehninger, Biochemistry; Sambrook et al., Molecular Cloning 2nd ed. 1989; Methods in Enzymology; Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences 18th ed. 1990; Carey & Sundberg, Advanced Organic Chemistry; Little & Rubin, Statistical Analysis with Missing Data 2nd ed. 2002; Pepe, The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests 2003; Zhou et al., Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine 2002; Hastie et al., The Elements of Statistical Learning 2nd ed. 2009; Cooley & Lohnes 1962; Jackson, A User's Guide to Principal Components 2003).
• Commercial documentation: C. Wilson et al., AACC Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2006; H. J. Kisner, Clin. Lab. Manage. Rev. 1997 Nov–Dec, 11(6):419–21 (Abbott ARCHITECT).

Because these are all either applicant-incorporated or background literature published well before the 2016-04-20 priority date, a full § 102 analysis must run against them — but on the face of the specification they are cited to support the invention's premises, not to be distinguished as anticipatory art.

4. References relevant to § 102 that I could NOT verify as citations of this patent

The following surfaced during searching but are not confirmed as cited in US 11,402,378 B2. I list them only as items a § 102 investigation should check, with the caveat attached:

• US 2011/0137851 A1 (Crescendo Bioscience) — confidence: high that it is incorporated by reference (per the sibling publication US 2019/0049443 A1). It discloses multi-biomarker (DAIMRK-type) RA disease-activity scoring. Potential § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) relevance to the broad "at least two/at least seven protein markers" claim format, but its marker panel differs from the CPSD/SAP/PEDF/C-peptide/tPA/TIG2/FAS set named in the preferred embodiments, so anticipation would turn on whether any claimed Markush member overlaps.
• US 8,450,064 B2 / US 8,962,249 B2 and the Crescendo "SDI"/"DAIMRK" family (assignee page: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/crescendo-bioscience) — same technical field; verification of any citation relationship to 11,402,378 is not confirmed.
• Centola et al., PLoS ONE 2013 (multi-biomarker disease activity test for RA) and Eastman et al. work on MBDA — not confirmed as cited here.

I explicitly decline to state that any of these anticipate a specific claim of US 11,402,378 B2, because (i) I have not seen the examiner citations, and (ii) § 102 anticipation requires every element of a claim to be disclosed in a single reference, which cannot be assessed from titles and abstracts alone.

5. What the claim set looks like, for the § 102 analysis you'll want to run

From the authoritative text and the Justia claims extract (https://patents.justia.com/patent/11402378), the independent claims are method claims of the form:

1. Assessing RA disease activity — at least one immunoassay on a blood sample → dataset of protein-level data for a multiplicity of markers drawn from a very large Markush set (the Justia extract shows "at least seven protein markers" from a ~90-member list beginning SAP, CPSD, TIG2, A1M, Hp, PEDF, CLU, tPA, CRP, MCP-4, AGP-1, C-peptide, CFH, PARC, GRO-alpha, SHBG, MMP-7, GDF-15, FGF-21, ANGPTL3, HPX, FAS, RAGE, CD5L, ENG, VWF, Apo C-III, IL-1ra, FCN3, Prx-IV, ST2, SORT1, Tweak, PSAT, HB-EGF, IL-8, B2M, Apo E, uPA, ADM, uPAR, TN, ESEL, MIG, GLP-1 total, IL-12p40, COMP, Apo H, F7, ITAC, ALP, TARC, PAI-1, IL-15, CP, CFHR1, DJ-1, AFP, HCC-4, FRTN, IgA, TAFI, CSTB, AACT, PPP, HSP-70, TFR1, THP, TN-C, PG1, HGF, RANTES, TNFR2, M-CSF, AB-40, cystatin-C, TIMP-3, IGFBP4, GIP, MDK, ANG, SCF, MPIF-1, OPG, CD40, MCP-2, IGFBP-1, VKDPS, HGFR, BDNF, MSP, MCP-1) → interpretation function → BDAS score. (Note: the Google Patents "Definitions" extract also recites "at least two protein markers," consistent with dependent claims narrowing to 2+ markers such as CPSD/SAP/PEDF/C-peptide/tPA/TIG2/FAS.)
2. Determining presence/absence of RA — same architecture.
3. Predicting radiographic progression, flare, or joint damage — same architecture.
4. Generating nucleic-acid and/or protein-level data — same architecture.

Because claim 1 sweeps in a very large Markush group of individually well-known serum proteins (CRP, Hp, AGP-1, tPA, PEDF, clusterin, SAP, etc., many already used in RA serum panels), the most probative § 102 art will be any pre-2016 reference disclosing a multiplex serum immunoassay plus a scoring algorithm using ≥7 of those named proteins. That is where I would target the search — and it is exactly the citation list I could not recover.

6. To complete the task properly, please supply one of the following

I can then produce the full per-reference table (full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and the specific claim(s) it potentially anticipates under § 102):

1. The "(56) References Cited" front-page block from the US 11,402,378 B2 grant or the US 2019/0049443 A1 publication; or
2. The USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier "Patent Citations" and "Cited By" tabs for application 16/164,297; or
3. The IDS/SB-08a and examiner PTO-892 forms filed in 16/164,297.

Bottom line: I verified the identity of US 11,402,378 B2 exactly as requested (and confirmed no same-series confusion), but I must report honestly that the patent's actual cited prior-art list is not retrievable from the sources and text available to me, and I will not invent references or § 102 mappings. Sections 3 and 5 above provide the grounded material and the claim architecture you need to run that analysis once the citation list is in hand.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before constructing the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,402,378 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on inputs. The authoritative full text you supplied does not itself contain a prior-art "References Cited" block, so I retrieved the face-of-patent citations for US 11,402,378 from the USPTO/Google Patents PDF (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/75/ed/4e335795a35f64/US11402378.pdf). Everything below is built on (a) those citations, (b) the '378 specification, and (c) the corroborating literature surfaced in search. Where I could not read a reference's actual content, I say so rather than assuming what it teaches. Do not treat any per-marker teaching attributed to a reference below as verified until the reference text is pulled.

---

1. The claims to be tested

Per the earlier sections (which I am building on, not repeating), the granted claims center on:

• Claim 1 (independent): performing ≥1 immunoassay on a blood sample to generate a dataset of protein-level data for at least seven markers; wherein the seven include TIG2, PEDF, CPSD, SAP, C-Peptide, tPA and FAS; generating an RA disease-activity score from the dataset via an interpretation function; producing an RA disease-activity assessment.
• Claim 4 (independent): same architecture, directed to predicting RA radiographic progression, flare or joint damage.
• Claim 5 depends from 4 (subject has RA radiographic progression/flare/joint damage).
• Claim 7: adds one or more of SHBG, A1M, AGP-1, CD5L, CRP, PSAT, uPA, GIP, Prx-IV, HGF, IL-15.

Two claim-construction points drive the whole § 103 analysis:

1. Every independent claim requires the same seven-marker core (TIG2, PEDF, CPSD, SAP, C-Peptide, tPA, FAS). The "at least seven" is therefore exactly the core plus optional extras. The claimed advance, reduced to substance, is: (i) a known immunoassay workflow, (ii) a known statistical "interpretation function," and (iii) the identification of one particular seven-protein set whose multiplexed concentrations correlate with RA activity.
2. "Interpretation function" is not defined by any structure or coefficient in the claims. The specification defines it generically ("a predictive model that is created by utilizing one or more statistical algorithms to transform a dataset…", and lists ANOVA, CART, Random Forest, SVM, bagged logistic regression, etc.). That breadth matters: the claim does not tie the panel to any specific model, weighting, or accuracy threshold. Notably, the only worked formula in the disclosure — BDAS = (BM1*(0.39^0.5)+BM2*(0.39^0.5)+BM3*(0.39^0.5)+BM4*(0.36^0.5)+BM5*(0.31^0.5))/10 — is a five-term expression, i.e., it is not commensurate with the seven-marker claim. That mismatch is itself a vulnerability worth flagging.

---

2. Effective filing date and which art qualifies

Key robustness point: the analysis does not depend on the 2016 priority date being perfected. Every reference below predates even the 2018-10-18 actual filing date, and the only inventor-authored disclosure in the set (Eastman 2012) is more than one year before either date, so AIA § 102(b)(1)(A)'s grace-period exception cannot remove it.

Family-member contradiction to flag. My earlier summary listed WO2015191423A1 as a "related family member." The '378 face, however, cites WO 2015191423 (12/2015) under "References Cited — Foreign Patent Documents," which is inconsistent with family membership. I report both literally and do not resolve it; if it is genuinely the same-family art it cannot be § 102 art, and if it is a separate earlier Crescendo filing it is § 102(a)(1) art as of its 2015-12-17 publication (and common ownership under § 102(b)(2)(C) would not rescue it from (a)(1)). Recommend confirming via Espacenet family view.

---

3. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA here is most plausibly an interdisciplinary team: a rheumatologist/immunologist (M.D. or Ph.D.) and a biostatistician/bioanalytical scientist, with ~2–5 years' experience in serum-biomarker assay development and multivariate model building for inflammatory disease. This is the level the patent itself assumes — it describes CLIA-lab reference-testing with multiplex immunoassays and a "practitioner" selecting/withdrawing therapy on a score.

---

4. The prior art (with dates and what each is relied on for)

Two things follow immediately. First, the primary reference is the patentee's own incorporated-by-reference prior application. The '378 specification states: "Recent advances in assessing inflammatory disease activity and progression are described in US 2011/0137851, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety." A reference incorporated by reference into the challenged patent is both § 102 art and, practically, an admission of the state of the art — which weakens any argument that the framework elements were non-obvious.

Second, the prior art does not merely disclose a panel; it discloses the process for choosing a panel, including express instructions to trade off adding/removing markers using information criteria (AIC, BIC) and cross-validation. That is a teaching directed at the very thing the '378 claims.

---

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Cavet '851 in view of Centola 2013 (primary; targets independent claims 1 and 4)

Coverage. Cavet '851 teaches every element of claim 1 except the identity of the seven core markers:

• immunoassay on a blood/serum sample → protein-level data for multiple markers ✔
• an algorithm ("interpretation function") combining concentrations into a single ≥0-to-100 score ✔
• correlation with DAS28-CRP and cut-points for low/moderate/high activity ✔
• output used to assess RA disease activity / guide therapy ✔

Centola 2013 supplies the missing element: it teaches that the panel is the product of iterative, multivariate selection from a large candidate set and expressly states that "multi-biomarker statistical models outperformed individual biomarkers" and that 25 candidates were trained before 12 were selected.

Motivation to combine (MPEP 2144 categories).

• (A) Known elements combined by known methods → predictable result. Both references use the same architecture (immunoassay panel + multivariate score regressed on DAS28-CRP). Substituting one set of known serum proteins for another within that architecture is a combination of known elements.
• (C)/(D) Known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement. Centola states the selection process was staged and iterative, and Cavet '851 expressly recites including/excluding additional biomarkers under information criteria — an express invitation to optimize the panel.
• (E) Obvious to try. The candidate universe here is finite, identified and predictable (serum proteins already known to be measurable and already implicated in RA/inflammation), and there is a high expectation of success because each candidate had to pass the same DAS28-correlation screen. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009), that is the paradigm of § 103.
• Design incentive. The '378 specification itself recites the acknowledged need: DAS is subjective, invasive and time-consuming, and "a method of clinically assessing disease activity is needed that is less invasive… more consistent, objective and quantitative." That is a market/clinical design incentive recited in the patent being challenged — an unusually clean motivation showing.

Reasonable expectation of success. Because claim 1 does not require any minimum accuracy, sensitivity, or correlation coefficient, and the "interpretation function" is any statistical model, the artisan need only expect some usable score. Given that each candidate was pre-screened for RA association and that many of the claimed markers (SAP, haptoglobin, CRP, tPA, clusterin, C-peptide, cathepsin D) are canonical acute-phase/inflammatory analytes, that expectation is met.

Ground 2 — Cavet '851 + Centola 2013 + Burska 2014 (or Ha 2014) + Choi 2013 (targets the specific seven-marker core)

Ground 1 alone may not be enough because the claim hard-codes a closed seven-marker set. The secondary references are needed to teach that each core member is a known, measurable, RA-activity-relevant serum protein:

• Burska 2014 (cytokine/chemokine review) would be the natural source for TIG2/chemerin (an adipokine/chemokine reported elevated in RA serum and synovial fluid and correlated with activity) and for the chemokine members of the broader list.
• Ha 2014 (RA biomarker review) for the acute-phase/protease/plasma-protein members (SAP, haptoglobin, cathepsin D, PEDF, clusterin, tPA, C-peptide).
• Choi 2013 / Hirata 2013 for the algorithmic-correlation step.

Motivation. A POSITA building an RA activity panel from these reviews would select markers on the reviews' own stated criteria (association with inflammation/RA activity, measurable in serum, orthogonal biology). Chemerin/TIG2 and PEDF in particular were being published as RA activity markers in exactly this 2012–2014 window, and soluble FAS (sFas/CD95) is a long-known serum apoptosis marker in RA. The artisan thus has an articulated reason to pick these seven from the disclosed set, and to combine them because each captures a different arm of RA pathophysiology (acute-phase [SAP, Hp], proteolytic/cartilage [CPSD, tPA], adipokine/metabolic [TIG2, C-peptide], apoptotic [FAS], angiogenic/neurotrophic [PEDF]) — a rationale the '378 specification itself advances ("biomarkers… relevant to key aspects of the pathophysiology of RA").

Rationale category: (A) combination of known elements with predictable aggregate result; (F) design incentive arising from the known desirability of orthogonal-biomarker panels.

Ground 3 — Eastman 2012 in view of Cavet '851 (targets the assay-format limitations: "multiplex assay," "contacting with a plurality of distinct reagents," "generating distinct complexes," "detecting the complexes")

Eastman, Manning et al. 2012 describes the multiplex MSD electrochemiluminescent sandwich-immunoassay platform used for the 12-biomarker RA test. That is precisely the "contact → complex → detect" limitation plus the "multiplex assay" limitation of the dependent claims. The step of "contacting the sample with a plurality of distinct reagents [antibodies]" and detecting antibody–analyte complexes is the most predictable, thoroughly conventional aspect of the entire claim set (see also the pre-1983 assay-format patents cited on the '378 face — Boguslaski 4,230,797; Maggio 4,233,402; David 4,376,110; Forrest 4,659,678).

Note an awkward fact for the patentee: Eastman is a named inventor on the '378. His own 2012 publication is nonetheless § 102(a)(1) prior art because it predates the 2016-04-20 priority by more than the one-year grace period. That means the patentee's own published disclosure supplies a material claim element. This is a candid-and-admission situation, not merely third-party art.

Ground 4 — Multi-biomarker score → radiographic progression (SWEFOT/ARD 2015; Curtis 2012) in view of Cavet '851 (targets independent claim 4 and claim 5)

Claim 4 differs from claim 1 only in the recited output ("radiographic progression, flare, or joint damage"). ARD 2015;74(6):1102 ("Pretreatment multi-biomarker disease activity score and radiographic progression in early RA: results from the SWEFOT trial") teaches exactly that a multi-biomarker disease activity score predicts radiographic progression in early RA — published before 2016-04-20. Curtis 2012 teaches the score's validation and its association with damage progression.

Motivation / rationale: (B) simple substitution of one known output for another using the same known score — indeed, the SWEFOT publication gives the express motivation: a score that predicts radiographic progression is clinically actionable for treatment intensification. Where a claim recites only a new intended result of an otherwise identical process, that recitation does not confer patentability. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977); Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("discovery of a new property inherent in the prior art… does not render the claims patentable"). See MPEP § 2112.01.

Ground 5 — The '378's own incorporated subject matter as an admission

Independent of whether Cavet '851 is formally prior art as to any particular claim, the '378 specification incorporates it "in its entirety" as describing "recent advances in assessing inflammatory disease activity and progression." A specification statement of this kind is usable as evidence of the knowledge of a POSITA and of admitted prior art. Where the only delta between the incorporated disclosure and the claims is the marker list, that delta collapses into Grounds 1–2.

---

6. Where the patentee has room to fight (be honest about the weaknesses of the above)

1. I have not verified the per-marker teachings. Ground 2 is the load-bearing ground for the closed seven-marker core, and it depends on Ha 2014 / Burska 2014 / Choi 2013 actually disclosing TIG2, PEDF, CPSD, SAP, C-Peptide, tPA and FAS — individually or in any combination — as RA-activity markers. I could not open those texts in this session. Action item: pull the full texts before relying on Ground 2. Until then, Ground 2 is a hypothesis with a stated evidentiary gap, not a conclusion.
2. C-Peptide and FAS are the soft spots. Neither is a canonical RA acute-phase marker. If the patentee has data showing that the seven-marker core materially outperforms the prior-art 12-marker MBDA panel — or that the seven were selected against a conventional expectation (e.g., the standard teaching would have favored VCAM-1/EGF/VEGF/IL-6/TNFR1/MMP-1/MMP-3/YKL-40/leptin/resistin/SAA/CRP) — that could be a genuine unexpected-results rebuttal under In re Soni and In re Kao. But note the claim does not recite any accuracy threshold, so the patentee would have to prove the surprising result is commensurate with the full claim scope, not just with one embodiment.
3. Teaching away. A patentee could argue the field had settled on the validated Vectra DA 12-marker panel, and that the prior art therefore discouraged changing it. This is weak under KSR (mere industry adoption of one option does not teach away from further optimization), especially where Centola and Cavet '851 both expressly describe continued panel optimization. But it is the argument they will make.
4. Secondary considerations with nexus problems. Commercial success of Vectra DA is the prior-art product, so any nexus runs to the prior art, not to the claimed seven-marker panel (no presumed nexus). The long-felt need for an objective RA activity measure was met by 2010 with Vectra DA, which undercuts need-based arguments. Copying and industry praise are likely absent on this record.
5. § 101 is a separate and real threat (Mayo/Alice) for claims whose final step is "generating a score… and producing an assessment," but that is outside the § 103 question asked.

---

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, on the available record, prima facie obvious over Cavet '851 (US 2011/0137851) in view of Centola 2013, with Eastman 2012 supplying the multiplex-assay mechanics. The motivation is express (both references teach continued panel optimization, information-criterion-based marker addition/removal, and the superiority of multi-marker models) and the expectation of success is high because the claim requires no accuracy threshold and the "interpretation function" is any statistical model.
• The seven-marker core is the only genuinely contestable limitation, and it is contestable only if Ha 2014 / Burska 2014 / Choi 2013 are shown to disclose or suggest the core members. If they do, claim 1 falls and claims 2–7 fall with it.
• Claim 4 (radiographic progression/flare/joint damage) is obvious over the same primary combination further in view of ARD 2015;74(6):1102 (SWEFOT) or Curtis 2012, because that reference supplies the exact recited output and the motivation for it, and reciting a discovered result of an otherwise identical known process does not confer patentability (In re Best; Titanium Metals).
• Strongest patentee counter: non-obviousness of the specific seven-marker set via unexpected results, with proof of a performance surprise over the 12-marker MBDA panel and nexus to the full claim scope. Given the disclosed example formula uses only five markers and the claims require seven, that showing will be difficult.

---

8. Explicit uncertainties / not verified

• Contents of Ha 2014, Burska 2014, Choi 2013, Hirata 2013, WO 2004056456, and WO 2015191423 — dates verified, teaching content not verified.
• Whether WO 2015191423 is family or prior art (the record is internally inconsistent — flagged in § 2).
• Whether the granted patent contains 3, 4, or more independent claims, and the exact wording of claims 2–3 and 6 — carried over unresolved from the earlier section; pull the granted claims from USPTO PatentCenter.
• The '378's prosecution history (what was actually applied and overcome) was not retrieved, so I cannot assess whether any Ground above was previously considered and withdrawn — which matters for IPR discretionary denial but not for the merits.
• No litigation or PTAB proceeding against the '378 was found in earlier searching (see prior section); nothing surfaced in this pass to change that.

Suggested next step: obtain the full texts of Ha 2014 (Joint Bone Spine 81:186-194), Burska 2014 (Mediators Inflamm. 2014:545493), and Choi 2013 (ARD 72:A845) and map each core marker to a specific passage. That single step converts Ground 2 from a reasoned hypothesis into a supportable obviousness ground.