Invalidity dossier
US 7883848
Regulation analysis by cis reactivity, RACR
Current assignee: Olink Proteomics AB
Added 10/22/2026, 4:01:11 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 7,883,848 B2 — "Regulation analysis by cis reactivity, RACR"
Bibliographic data (as supplied)
- Inventor: Olof Ericsson
- Original assignee: Olink AB; current assignee listed as Olink Proteomics AB
- Priority date: 2005-07-08; filed: 2006-07-10; granted/published: 2011-02-08
- Application: US 11/483,825; earlier publication US 2007/0020669 A1 (2007-01-25)
- Status listed as active, with an adjusted expiration date of 2029-05-04 (described in the source as an assumption, not a legal conclusion)
Purpose
The text states that the invention "relates to methods for detecting affinity-based interactions and functional-based interactions, and the relative strengths of those interactions between molecules of interest." It addresses the difficulty of mapping large interaction networks—the excerpt notes that ~30,000 genes imply roughly 30,000 proteins and 4.5×10⁸ possible protein pairs, with (n²+n)/2 possible pairs among n library members.
Plain-language scope
Libraries of "interactors" are built in which each molecule of interest is coupled to at least one unique nucleic acid moiety. Interactions are detected by detecting a combination of at least two nucleic acid tags—one from each molecule—where at least one such combination is required to produce signal in a single microarray feature. The inventors describe this as an adaptation making protein interaction analysis amenable to microarray readout, avoiding the need for a separate detectable label per target and avoiding immobilizing one interaction partner (which could disturb the interaction or protein conformation). The methods are said to allow detection, interactor identification, and determination of relative interaction strengths across a library, and kits are provided. The excerpt also surveys drawbacks of prior approaches (microarrays, yeast two-hybrid, display techniques) but is truncated mid-sentence at "covalent displa…".
What the excerpt does not establish
It does not provide the claims, so the actual enforceable scope cannot be determined. It does not give the detailed protocols, specific nucleic acid tag sequences, detection chemistries, or experimental results. It does not establish validity, priority entitlement, or ownership history beyond the recorded assignments shown. Prior-art analysis is outside the supplied text's scope.
Generated 10/22/2026, 4:10:48 AM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7883848. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.