US 10126233

I'll search for the specific patent number and any associated litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me check for any litigation or IPR activity involving this patent and confirm the claim text.

Let me retrieve the exact independent claim text and check for any litigation record.

US Patent 10,126,233 B2 — Analyst Summary

Bottom line on the search itself: I could confirm the bibliographic and claim data below from Google Patents, Justia, and patent-family records. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, appeal, or IPR involving this specific patent number (10,126,233) in the results returned. Google Patents does carry a generic "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" flag pointing to a Darts-IP family record, but I could not retrieve the underlying case name, court, or date. Treat any litigation statement as unverified.

1. Bibliographic data

Assignee nuance (flagging, not correcting): The Google Patents page lists three "current assignees" — Trinean NV, Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, and Unchained Labs Inc — and shows a 2013‑09‑11 assignment to Porsche AG with assignors Marques, Krauss, Rauner (names not matching this patent's only named inventor, Boonefaes). This Porsche record appears inconsistent with the patent's actual content and is likely a database artifact, but I am reporting it literally as recorded rather than resolving it. Justia lists the assignee as Unchained Labs (Pleasanton, CA). Confirming the true current owner would require checking the USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment records directly.

Family members: WO 2012/117036 A1; EP 2 495 546 A1 ("Deconvolution of spectra"); EP 2 681 532 A1; CN 103403530 B; CA 2,828,652 C; US 2013/0332084 A1.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A method for analyzing UV-VIS spectrophotometer data of a sample comprising at DNA and/or RNA is described. The method comprises receiving UV-VIS spectrophotometer data, fitting the UV-VIS spectrometer data taking into account at least one spectrum representative for a base pair being any of more of adenine-thymine (AT) or guanine-cytosine (GC) or adenine-uracil, and deriving from the fitting a quantification of an amount of DNA and/or RNA."

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has two independent claims, one method claim and one system claim. (Note: the claim text in the authoritative full text supplied to me was truncated at the description, so the wording below is reconstructed from Justia's published claim listing and the corresponding Chinese division CN 103403530 B; I flag this as slightly less than fully authoritative. Numbering of dependent claims may differ slightly between the US grant and the CN family member.)

Claim 1 — Computer-implemented method (the core invention)
A computer-implemented method of analyzing UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data of a sample containing DNA and/or RNA, comprising three steps:

1. Receiving the UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data;
2. Fitting that data using at least one reference spectrum that is representative of a base pair — specifically AT (adenine‑thymine), GC (guanine‑cytosine), or AU (adenine‑uracil); and
3. Deriving, from the fit, a quantification of the amount of DNA and/or RNA.

The inventive core: instead of fitting only individual free nucleotides/nucleobases, the fit uses spectra characteristic of nucleotides as paired bases in a duplex, which lets the algorithm resolve heavily overlapping UV spectra (e.g., distinguishing dsDNA from ssDNA/RNA and from free dNTPs) even in complex, high-OD mixtures.

Claim 17 — Computer-implemented system
A system for performing the same analysis, comprising:

• Input means for receiving the UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data;
• Processing means programmed to (a) fit the data taking into account at least one base‑pair spectrum (AT, GC, or AU) and (b) derive from the fit a quantification of DNA and/or RNA; and
• Output means for outputting the quantification for the sample(s) under study.

(Claim 18, dependent, merely requires the processing means to be adapted to perform the fitting of any of method claims 1–16.)

Representative dependent claims (to show scope):

• Using exactly two base-pair reference spectra of two distinct GC contents (the "two extreme GC" fit).
• Fitting DNA by combining base-pair spectra with spectra of separate nucleobases (A, G, T, C, U), optionally as difference spectra (base-pair spectrum minus separate-nucleobase spectrum).
• Applying the method to a PCR reaction, to quantify dsDNA formed, without first purifying the reaction mix.
• Including a contaminant spectral component (e.g., trimethylglycine, guanidinethiocyanate, phenol, EDTA, proteins, hemoglobin, sodium azide).
• Including components for scattering and/or turbidity.
• Quantifying double-stranded DNA specifically.
• Using a spectrophotometer to obtain the data, with UV‑VIS radiation in the range of 300 nm to 1100 nm (a notable narrowing in one dependent claim relative to the specification's broader 150–300 nm lower bound; treat the exact recitation with caution).

There is also a second, broader disclosure in the specification (a general "analysis of samples consisting of a number of constituents" framework using prior information, unknown components, and iterative residue minimization), but that material is described in the description and does not appear to be captured by the two independent claims above — the independent claims are directed to the DNA/RNA base-pair fitting aspect.

4. Scientific/technical substance

• The fitting approach is a form of multivariate curve resolution / linear least squares deconvolution, using reference spectra (matrix R) and measured spectra (matrix A) to solve for component contributions (matrix Q), with an iterative variant that also solves the inverse problem.
• Data analysis showed that for long dsDNA (≥50 bp, especially ≥100 bp), the spectral variance is largely explained by a single variable — GC content — so two reference spectra at two distinct (e.g., extreme) GC contents suffice for accurate fitting. Shorter fragments (<~50 bp) show nearest-neighbor variance that defeats the simple two-component fit.
• Applications claimed/described: PCR monitoring (dsDNA formation, dNTP consumption), dsDNA quantification in ssRNA/ssDNA mixtures, contaminant identification (e.g., proteins, PCR inhibitors), and reference-spectrum extraction.
• The specification cites Tataurov et al., Biophys. Chem. 133 (2008) 66–70, for predicting DNA UV spectra, and Spjøtvoll et al., Technometrics 24 (1982), among prior art.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Claims: I could not read the granted US claim set from the supplied full text (it cut off mid-description). The claim summary is drawn from secondary sources (Justia) and the CN family member; the number and dependency of dependent claims may not map exactly to the US grant. Verify against USPTO PatentCenter for the authoritative claim text.
2. Litigation/CAFC: No CAFC 2026 appeal or docket for US 10,126,233 was found. The Google Patents "family has litigation" flag exists but the case details were not retrievable. Do not assume active 2026 CAFC litigation.
3. Ownership: Trinean NV → Unchained Labs lineage is well documented (Trinean's "Lunatic"/"Stunner"/DropSense products use this spectral-content-profiling technology; Unchained Labs acquired Trinean). The Porsche AG assignee entry is likely spurious but is reported as found.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10126233 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned mostly noise. Let me run more targeted litigation-database searches.

Bottom line

I could not confirm any specific litigation (district court, CAFC, or PTAB) that asserts or challenges US Patent 10,126,233. My targeted searches of litigation-oriented sources (CourtListener/RECAP, PACER-derived dockets, PTAB/USPTO petition records, Unified Patents materials, and the underlying Google Patents record) did not surface a case naming this patent number. Per your instruction, I am reporting that rather than inventing or inferring cases.

I did, however, find one flagged-but-unverifiable signal that some litigation exists somewhere in this patent's worldwide family (details below).

What I searched

• US patent 10126233 litigation, "10126233" patent lawsuit defendant, "10126233" patent case docket courtlistener
• Unchained Labs "10126233" / "10,126,233" lawsuit infringement
• Trinean NV patent lawsuit UV-VIS spectrophotometer DNA quantification
• "US10126233" patent litigation Unified Patents

What I found

1. A "Family has litigation" indicator on the Google Patents record. The US10126233B2 page carries a Darts‑IP family-litigation flag:

   "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed … https://patents.darts‑ip.com/?family=46757375"
   (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10126233](/patent/US10126233)/en, fetched 2026‑09‑24)

   This indicates that at least one litigation involving some member of this patent family has been filed somewhere in the world, per Darts‑IP's dataset. Critically, the Google Patents page did not expose the court, parties, case number, or jurisdiction, and my follow‑up searches did not retrieve those specifics. So I cannot attribute a plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome to it. Treat this as a lead, not a confirmed case.

2. No US assertion or PTAB challenge surfaced. Nothing in my results linked this patent to a US district court complaint, a CAFC appeal, or an IPR/PGR/CBM. (Patent status metadata shows "Active, expires 2033‑05‑13," i.e., maintenance fees paid — but that is status, not litigation.)

Apparent false positives I ruled out (do not rely on these)

Several results matched "10126233" but are not this patent. Because your rule is to interpret identifiers literally and not auto‑correct, I flag them explicitly as distinct entities:

• UK company number 10126233 = "25 ST AUBYNS RTM COMPANY LIMITED" (Companies House filings) — unrelated.
• DOI 10.1109/I2CT57861.2023.10126233 — an IEEE conference paper identifier — unrelated.
• Brazilian exam-registration and TJRJ registration numbers "10126233" — unrelated.
• Unrelated patent cases that appeared in results: Ingenus v. Accord, Sight Sciences v. Ivantis/Alcon, Dot Com Entertainment v. CyberBingo, Storage Vectors v. Nothing Technology, Intellectros v. Deere. None involve US 10,126,233.
• The Unified Patents PTAB petitions shown (e.g., re patents 10,621,228; 10,237,577; the '658 patent) are different patents.

Relevant background (context only, not litigation)

US 10,126,233 B2 ("DNA and/or RNA determination from UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data"), inventor Tom Boonefaes, priority date 2011‑03‑01, filed 2012‑02‑29, granted 2018‑11‑13. Assignees of record include Trinean NV and Unchained Labs Inc. Related family members include WO2012117036A1, EP2495546A1 (Deconvolution of spectra), EP2681532A1, and CA2828652C. This gives the likely universe within which the Darts‑IP "family" flag would sit, but I found no confirmed case records.

Recommendation to close the gap

To confirm whether litigation exists and get the fields you requested (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, status), check directly:

• The Darts‑IP family link above (requires subscription): https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=46757375
• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• CourtListener/RECAP and PACER docket searches on the parties Trinean NV and Unchained Labs Inc (searching by assignee often surfaces cases that a bare patent-number search misses)

Summary: No litigation involving US 10,126,233 is confirmed by my searches. A "family has litigation" flag exists on the Google Patents record, but I could not retrieve the underlying case details, and I will not fabricate them.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" result against public sources before writing the analysis.

The results are noisy — several unrelated "'233" patents appear. Let me run targeted checks on the patent owner and any IPR/PGR docket.

Two more verification passes: the EPO family member's status and whether any IPR/PGR/reexam exists under the family.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,126,233: 0. The canonical structured block ("PTAB proceedings on file") — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web checks (Google Patents, PTAB-related document aggregations, petitioner/patent-owner name searches) surfaced no proceeding number referencing 10,126,233. There is therefore no breakdown by status: nothing is invalidated, nothing is sustained, nothing is settled, nothing was denied institution. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened by surviving IPRs" patent — it is a never-challenged patent. That cuts both ways for a defendant: the claims are untested, so there is no PTAB roadmap to copy and no estoppel to inherit, but also no FWD you can lean on to argue the claims are weak.

A note on the false positives I had to rule out. Searches for "233 patent + IPR" return a dense cluster of unrelated patents, which I confirmed are not US 10,126,233:

• A drinking-container patent ("the '233 Patent," Ignite USA v. Pacific Market Int'l, N.D. Ill. 1:14-cv-00856) with a PTAB FWD on claims 2, 5, 21, 22 under § 103 (Chaffin + Albert), affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• Philips U.S. 7,088,233 (Garmin litigation, FWD 2021-10-04).
• A Samsung IPR exhibit referencing a home-shopping "’228 patent" and an unrelated petition exhibit discussing "the '233 Patent" in an exhibit-declaration context.

None of these involve Boonefaes's patent. Do not cite them as this patent's PTAB history — that is exactly the kind of cross-patent conflation that gets a brief sanctioned.

Proceeding-by-proceeding detail

There are no proceedings to detail. I am not going to manufacture a subsection or a proceeding number, because the instruction against invention is absolute and the structured data is unambiguous.

What I did find adjacent to the patent (flagging as context, not as PTAB activity):

• EPO opposition — EP 2 681 532 B1 (family member of US 10,126,233). Google Patents' family table records the European counterpart as "not_active — Revoked." This is an EPO opposition/revocation outcome, not a PTAB proceeding and not binding on the US claims — but it is the single most useful substantive signal available for this family, and a defendant should pull the EPO opposition file before building any invalidity theory. If the EPO revoked the counterpart on prior art, that art is a natural starting point for a fresh US IPR (there is no § 315(e) estoppel here, since no US petitioner exists).
• Google Patents "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" flag, pointing to a Darts-IP family record (family=46757375). I could not retrieve the case name, court, or filing date. This flag is consistent with the earlier analyst section's warning and I renew it: treat any litigation statement as unverified. It indicates some litigation somewhere in the family (possibly European, possibly the same matter that produced the EP revocation), not necessarily a US district court case.
• No reexamination surfaced either; the family legal-events log I retrieved shows only assignment records, grant, and maintenance-fee payments (4th-year fee, small entity).

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. No claim of 10,126,233 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. Per the claim map in the earlier section — independent claim 1 (computer-implemented method: receive spectra → fit with a base-pair spectrum AT/GC/AU → derive DNA/RNA quantification) and independent claim 17 (system with input/processing/output means), plus dependent claims covering the exactly-two-GC-reference-spectra fit, the difference-spectra variant, the PCR application, contaminant/scattering/turbidity components, and dsDNA quantification — every one of these is live and unreviewed. A defendant today cannot say "claim 1 is dead"; it is fully enforceable and carries a statutory presumption of validity under § 282.

Estoppel landscape: empty. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue — there are no petitioners, no privies, and no "grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised." Practically, this means a defendant today has the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art available in a first-filed IPR, including art that a prior petitioner would have been estopped from re-running. Caveat: if the same real party in interest was a party to whatever the Darts-IP family litigation is, and that party already litigated invalidity in district court, the ordinary district-court estoppel/issue-preclusion rules (not § 315(e)) could bite — verify the Darts-IP entry before relying on a clean-slate assumption.

Pattern signals: none of the classic ones. No serial petitioner, no patent-owner PTAB appeal history, no Unified Patents / RPX / defensive-aggregator challenge on record. For a patent issued 2018-11-13 and now approaching eight years old with an adjusted expiration of 2033-05-13, the absence of any IPR is itself informative. The earlier section notes the technology has been commercialized continuously (Trinean → Unchained Labs, June 2017 acquisition; DropSense/Lunatic product line) — a well-funded, actively-sold patent. The most likely explanations for zero PTAB activity are (a) low assertion activity against deep-pocketed defendants, (b) tight claim-family concentration — this is a narrow, chemistry-specific patent that competitors can design around rather than invalidate, and (c) the counterpart patent was already killed at the EPO, so European competitors got their relief there and never needed a US IPR.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of 10,126,233:

1. There is no FWD to link to — say so plainly. Unlike a typical defensive analysis, you cannot point the court or opposing counsel to a PTAB disposition. Your framing is: "No AIA trial has ever been instituted on this patent; all claims, including independent claims 1 and 17, are untested and enjoy the § 282 presumption."
2. Mine the EPO opposition file for EP 2 681 532 B1 immediately. That is the highest-yield lead in this family. Whatever art revoked the European counterpart is presumptively your IPR petition's starting set. Because EP and US claim scope can differ (and the US dependent set may be broader/narrower), confirm the art maps onto the US claim language — particularly the "at least one spectrum representative for a base pair" limitation, which is the likely § 103 battleground.
3. File a first IPR early and stipulate under Sotera. With no prior petitioner, you can be the first mover, avoid § 315(e) estoppel traps entirely, and preserve a Fintiv/§ 314(a) discretionary-denial fight on favorable ground by stipulating not to pursue instituted grounds in the parallel litigation.
4. Resolve the ownership and litigation questions before investing. (i) Confirm the true current assignee via USPTO PatentCenter and the Assignment database — the earlier section flags the Porsche AG assignment entry (assignors Marques/Krauss/Rauner, not matching sole inventor Boonefaes) as an apparent database artifact for this patent number. A real-party-in-interest defect in the chain of title is itself a standing/§ 315 issue worth checking. (ii) Pull the Darts-IP family record (family 46757375) to identify the litigation, the parties, and whether it creates any estoppel or RPI overlap.
5. Watch the § 101 angle — it is not available in IPR. IPR is limited to § 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications. The claims here are a computer-implemented method and system for spectral deconvolution — a classic Alice target. If you want a § 101 or § 112 challenge, that must be a PGR (unavailable — the patent's 2011 priority is pre-AIA and the 9-month window closed in 2019) or, realistically, a district-court motion. Budget for that separately from any IPR.

If you are the patent owner (Unchained Labs): the clean PTAB record is an asset — no estoppel against you, no adverse construction on the books, and the presumption intact. But the EP revocation is your exposure: expect a defendant to file an IPR built on the European opposition art, and prepare a preliminary response around the "base-pair spectrum" limitation as the distinguishing technical feature.

Explicit uncertainties (do not treat as verified):

• I could not definitively confirm the absence of a very recently filed petition that the ODP ingest has not yet indexed, or one filed under a different patent number within the same family (e.g., US 10,488,330 or the WO/EP members). My negative finding rests on the canonical ODP block plus searches that returned only unrelated "'233" patents.
• The Darts-IP litigation flag remains unresolved — no case name, court, or date retrieved.
• EP 2 681 532 B1 "Revoked" is reported as it appears in the family legal-status table; I did not retrieve the underlying EPO opposition decision, so the grounds and the finality/status of any appeal are unconfirmed.
• No Federal Circuit appeal exists to link, because there is no PTAB decision and no identified US litigation.

If you can supply the Darts-IP case name or a USPTO PatentCenter litigation/assignment dump for application 14/002,685, I can close the two open items above.

I'll research the assignment record, ownership chain, and any litigation for this patent. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and any litigation involving Trinean or this patent family.

I was able to establish the ownership chain from company/legal-events records, but I hit a tool-step limit before I could pull the actual USPTO Patent Assignment Center entries (reel/frame, correspondent-of-record). I flag that limitation prominently below rather than inventing reel numbers.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,126,233 B2

Critical sourcing caveat (read first): I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center records (reel/frame, execution dates, recorded correspondent) in this session — the search budget was exhausted before those queries returned. Everything below is reconstructed from Google Patents legal events, the prior analyst summary, and public M&A/press records, and is labeled accordingly. No reel/frame number below is invented. To verify, search by patent number at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Inventors

• Boonefaes is the sole named inventor in both the Google Patents record and the Justia listing. No co-inventors are listed.
• Employer inference basis: the Google Patents legal-events entry 2013-08-30 "Assigned to TRINEAN NV … Assignors: Boonefaes, Tom" shows the inventor executing an assignment to Trinean, i.e., the standard employee/employer inventor assignment. This is consistent with Boonefaes being a Trinean employee at filing, but I did not independently confirm his employment title.
• No unusual inventor-departure pattern detected. I found no evidence of all inventors leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing (which would presage a fire-sale). Note the company founders were Bert Luyssaert, Kris Naessens, and Ronny Bockstaele — none of these is a named inventor on this patent, so do not conflate founders with inventors.

Original assignee

Trinean NV — Dulle Grietlaan 17/3, B-9050 Ghentbrugge, Belgium.

• Business: Instrumentation/micro-volume molecular spectroscopy. Trinean was a spin-off of Ghent University and imec (Leuven), founded September 2006. It made the DropSense16 / DropSense96 micro-volume UV-VIS spectrophotometer and the DropPlate consumables, driven by the DropQuant / DropControl / cDrop software suite.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — strongly indicated. The DropSense96 + DropQuant software performs full-spectrum UV-VIS dsDNA/RNA/protein quantification on microliter samples; the specification's PCR, dsDNA-vs-RNA, and contaminant-deconvolution embodiments track Trinean's product line. (Note: DropSense96 sells today under Unchained Labs / PerkinElmer distribution.)
• Current status: Trinean no longer exists as an independent operating entity. It was acquired by Unchained Labs on 2017‑06‑29 (Unchained's 5th acquisition in ~2 years). Unchained Labs itself was then acquired by The Carlyle Group, announced 2021‑05‑04 ($435M) from Novo Holdings, Canaan Partners, and TPG Biotech. So the asset today sits inside a Carlyle-owned, actively operating life-sciences tools company — not a shell.

Database artifact to flag (not a correction): Google Patents lists the "Original Assignee" as Unchained Labs Inc and shows a 2012‑02‑29 "Application filed by Unchained Labs Inc." This is anachronistic — the application was filed February 2012 (PCT/EP2012/053481), and Unchained Labs was not founded until 2015. The true 2012 applicant was Trinean NV. Treat the "Unchained Labs = original assignee" field as a Google Patents back-fill artifact from the 2017 acquisition, not a contemporaneous fact.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Reel/frame numbers, execution dates, and recorded correspondents were NOT retrievable in this session. The entries below are reconstructed from Google Patents legal events + M&A records. Verify each against the Assignment Center before relying on it.

• 2011‑03‑01 — Priority filing (US provisional 61/447,941; also EP 11168005 dated 2011‑05‑29, GB 1200031.1 dated 2012‑01‑03) — applicant: Trinean NV (unverified whether by provisional applicant or inventor)

  • Conveyance: N/A (initial filing)
  • Context: initial filing by the operating company.

• 2012‑02‑29 — PCT/EP2012/053481 filed (WO 2012/117036 A1); US national-phase app 14/002,685

  • Context: initial filing.

• 2013‑08‑30 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved — "Assigned to TRINEAN NV"

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → employer)
  • Assignor: Tom Boonefaes (inventor)
  • Assignee: Trinean NV
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: standard employee inventor-to-employer assignment of the priority/national-phase rights.

• 2013‑09‑11 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved — "Assigned to Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft"

  • Conveyance: Assignment (as recorded)
  • Assignors recorded: Marques, Marcos Remedios; Krauss, Thomas; Rauner, Thomas
  • Assignee: Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: ⚠️ Almost certainly a mismatched / spurious database record. Neither the assignors (automotive names) nor the assignee (Porsche, an automaker) relate to a Belgian life-sciences spectrophotometry patent; the patent has only one inventor (Boonefaes). This appears to be a Google Patents indexing error attaching an unrelated Porsche assignment to this record. Do not treat Porsche as an owner without a verified reel/frame showing patent number 14/002,685 or 10,126,233 on its face.

• 2017‑06‑29 — Unchained Labs acquires Trinean NV (corporate acquisition; share purchase)

  • Conveyance: Acquisition (whether an express patent assignment was separately recorded at USPTO is unverified)
  • Assignor: Trinean NV shareholders / Trinean NV
  • Assignee: Unchained Labs, Inc. (Pleasanton, CA)
  • Correspondent / counsel: Cooley LLP — partner Mark Weeks (advised Unchained Labs on the Trinean acquisition; Cooley had advised Unchained Labs on all five of its acquisitions since forming the company in 2014)
  • Context: operating-company strategic acquisition — not a fire-sale. Unchained raised a concurrent $13M Series C (Novo Ventures, Canaan, TPG).

• 2018‑11‑13 — Grant of US 10,126,233 B2

  • Context: issuance. (Note: Google Patents lists the "original assignee" at issue as Unchained Labs Inc — the back-fill artifact noted above.)

• ~2021‑05‑04 — The Carlyle Group acquires Unchained Labs (~$435M) from Novo Holdings, Canaan Partners, TPG Biotech

  • Conveyance: Acquisition of the parent (Unchained Labs, Inc.); separate patent-record assignment unverified
  • Context: private-equity buyout. Asset remains with the operating company.

On records retrieval: I cannot state whether the Assignment Center shows a separate recorded assignment for the 2017 Trinean acquisition, the 2021 Carlyle buyout, or any internal change of name. If your verification pulls only the 2013 inventor-to-Trinean assignment and nothing later, that would not be surprising — corporate share acquisitions do not always trigger a USPTO patent-record assignment when the target entity survives as a subsidiary.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10126233
    2011 : Priority filing by Trinean NV
    2012 : PCT and US national phase filed
    2013 : Inventor Boonefaes assigns to Trinean NV
         : Unverified Porsche AG record
    2017 : Unchained Labs acquires Trinean
    2018 : Patent granted
    2021 : Carlyle Group buys Unchained Labs

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The chain runs operating-company → operating-company (Trinean NV → Unchained Labs → Carlyle-owned Unchained Labs). No "IP / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC, no registered-agent-service address appears anywhere in the record I could retrieve. Assignees are a Belgian instrumentation maker and a Pleasanton, CA lab-tools company.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Trinean NV, Unchained Labs, Inc., nor Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities). Unchained Labs is an R&D-driven product company with 8+ product lines and $35M+ revenue at the time of acquisition.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT as an NPE tell (recurrence noted). The recurring advisor is Cooley LLP (partner Mark Weeks on the Trinean M&A; Cooley also handled Unchained's other acquisitions and appears to be the prosecution firm per the prior summary). Cooley is a large general-practice firm doing both operating-company and other IP work, so a single/duplicated appearance is not an NPE finding under the task's own rule. Flagging only that I could not retrieve the Assignment Center "correspondent of record" fields, so I cannot confirm whether a specific recording attorney recurs on any USPTO filings for this patent.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Transfers are ~4–5 years apart (2013 → 2017 → 2021), consistent with organic corporate events, not chained LLC flipping within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit naming this patent was found, so there is no transfer positioned within 6 months before a complaint. The Google Patents "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" flag (Darts‑IP family 46757375) exists, but I could not retrieve the case name, court, or date, and I found no corresponding district-court or CAFC docket for US 10,126,233. Treat the flag as unverified.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 involving Trinean or Unchained Labs was found. Trinean's exit was a solvent acquisition; Unchained's was a $435M PE buyout.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No evidence Unchained Labs transferred the patent to an assertion vehicle. The 2013‑09‑11 Porsche entry is the only outbound record and is almost certainly a data artifact, not a privateering transfer (Porsche is not a litigation vehicle and the recorded assignors don't match this patent).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at a Carlyle-owned operating company.

Verdict

Insufficient data (leaning: normal operating-company asset, non-asserting).

Justification: The only ownership facts I could ground are the 2013 inventor→Trinean NV assignment and the 2017 Unchained Labs acquisition, ending at a Carlyle-owned operating company that ships the DropSense/Stunner product family — none of the eight NPE signals is present, and no infringement suit naming this patent is evidenced. However, because I could not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame entries or recorded correspondents, and the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag (Darts‑IP family 46757375) is unexplained, I cannot positively certify a clean operating-company chain. Recommend re-running the Assignment Center search by patent number to capture the reel/frame and correspondent-of-record before relying on this verdict.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10,126,233" or "14/002,685") and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Cross-reference note / contradiction to flag

The prior analyst summary stated the "original assignee" as Unchained Labs Inc and treated the Porsche AG entry as "likely spurious." My independent review agrees on Porsche (spurious) and agrees the true original applicant/assignee was Trinean NV, adding the specific date-based reason: Unchained Labs did not exist in 2012, and the sole inventor is Boonefaes — neither of which is consistent with a Porsche automotive assignment. I have not repeated the prior section's content, only extended it with the timeline and signal analysis.

I'll research the patent's cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the full "References Cited" list and the JP/EP citations.

Let me confirm the complete cited-reference list and check for litigation/IPR activity.

Scope, sources, and a hard caveat on what "citations for 10126233" means

I searched for US 10,126,233 and for its cited references. I was able to retrieve the patent's (56) References Cited list from the granted‑patent PDF (patentimages/Google Patents mirror) and the granted claim listing from Justia. Two honesty notes up front:

1. I hit the tool/step limit before I could (a) re‑confirm the litigation flag, or (b) pull a second independent copy of the full cited‑reference list (e.g., USPTO PatentCenter / FPO). So the list below is drawn from one source, the granted‑PDF "(56) References Cited" block, plus the Justia claim page. Treat the NPL list as complete‑looking but single‑sourced.
2. "Patent citation" vs. "prior art" is a distinction the answer must respect. Most of the patent documents cited on the face of '233 are not anticipatory art for the DNA/RNA base‑pair‑fitting claims — they are cited for background/hardware reasons. The substantively dangerous art here is the non‑patent literature. I map both, and I do not manufacture § 102 anticipations where none exists.

Governing law note: App. 14/002,685 was filed Feb. 29, 2012 (PCT/EP2012/053481), so it is a pre‑AIA application. Pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) apply, with the earliest priority date of March 1, 2011. A reference must predate that priority date (and, for § 102(b) printed publications, the one‑year grace period) to even be in the § 102 conversation. Several cited "patent documents" fail that test outright.

1. Patent documents cited on the face of US 10,126,233

From the "(56) References Cited" block:

Bottom line on the face‑cited patent documents: only US 7,786,295 (2010), EP 1524514 (2005), and JP 2007116995 (2007) even fall before the critical date, and of those, none anticipates the DNA/RNA base‑pair‑fitting claims. P1 and P2 are effectively field‑distant; P3 is the sole patent document that touches the inventive space and is at most an obviousness reference.

Unresolved item to flag: the PDF text also shows a truncated line beginning "U.S. Appl. No. 6…", which appears to be a cited co‑pending US application. I could not retrieve its full number/identity before hitting the step limit — it should be pulled from USPTO records to complete the list. Also, the "(56)" block's U.S. subsection as retrieved showed only the single Heath patent; I cannot rule out additional U.S. entries hidden by source truncation.

2. The art that actually matters — cited non‑patent literature

These are where the real § 102/§ 103 pressure sits, and where any anticipation argument would have to be built. Dates are as printed on the reference (all pre‑date the Mar. 1, 2011 priority except where noted).

3. Which claims could anyone plausibly reach under § 102? (Honest answer: none cleanly)

Granted claims (per Justia, US 10,126,233): claim 1 is the base computer‑implemented method; 7 PCR; 8 contaminant component; 9 listed contaminants (trimethylglycine, guanidinethiocyanate, phenol, EDTA, proteins, sodium azide, hemoglobin); 10 mixture of dNTPs/primers/polymerase/DNA; 11 scattering/turbidity; 12 dsDNA; 13 spectrophotometer; 14 300–1100 nm; 15 system claim (spectrophotometer + processor + exactly two reference spectra of two distinct GC base‑pair contents); 16 non‑transitory CRM claim; 17 depends on claim 13; 18 a method claim directed to RNA.

Mapping candidate art to claims:

• JP 2007116995 (P3): potentially touches the subject matter of claims 1/12/13/14 (UV‑VIS quantification of ss/dsDNA and components) — but its PLS regression does not read on the claimed base‑pair reference spectrum limitation. → No § 102 anticipation; § 103 reference.
• Tataurov (2008): bears on the base‑pair/GC spectral dependence concept underlying claims 1, 2–6, 15, 16, 18 — but discloses a predictive model, not the fitting/quantifying acts. → § 103 core reference, no § 102.
• Mach (1992): bears on dependent claims 8/9 (protein/phenol contaminant components). → § 103, no § 102.
• Spjøtvoll (1982), de Juan, Garrido, Jaumot, Azzouz, Kessler: go to the "minimizing a residue / iterative deconvolution" description material and dependent‑claim concepts (e.g., claims 11, and the description‑level iterative framework). → § 103, no § 102.
• US 7,786,295, EP 1524514, Rachmayanti, Owen, Sigma sheet: no § 102 and little § 103 value against the DNA/RNA fitting claims (field‑distant or generic).
• EP 2495546, EP 2681532, WO 2012/117036: not prior art (applicant's own family; post‑date the filing/critical date).

Net: There is no cited reference that discloses every element of claim 1 (or 15/16/18). No § 102 anticipation is supportable on the face‑cited art. The only avenue is a § 103 combination built primarily on Tataurov (dsDNA/base‑composition spectral dependence) + JP 2007116995 or Saurina (UV‑VIS quantification of DNA/nucleic‑acid components) + Spjøtvoll/MCR‑ALS art (deconvolution math), with Mach for the contaminant‑component dependent claims.

4. Contradictions with the previously generated section (flagged per instructions)

1. Independent‑claim count/numbering conflicts. The prior section states the patent has "two independent claims" — a method claim 1 and a system claim 17, with claim 18 dependent on it. The Justia claim listing I retrieved for the granted patent shows the system claim is claim 15, a non‑transitory CRM claim is claim 16, claim 17 depends on claim 13, and claim 18 is a method claim directed to RNA. That implies at least four independent claims (1, 15, 16, 18), not two, and the system claim is 15, not 17. The prior section already flagged its claim numbering as uncertain (reconstructed from Justia + CN family); this is that contradiction materializing. Use the Justia granted‑claim numbering, and verify against USPTO PatentCenter.
2. The prior section's "Claim 17 — Computer‑implemented system" overview is therefore mis‑numbered relative to what I now see; its substance (input means/processing means/output means) is closer to the pre‑grant published claim 38, which was renumbered on grant.
3. Litigation flag: I could not re‑verify or retrieve the Google Patents "family has litigation" case details (steps exhausted). The prior section's caution stands — do not assert active 2026 CAFC litigation.

5. Explicit uncertainties

• Single‑source reference list: I could not cross‑check the "(56)" block against a second database; a cited "U.S. Appl. No. 6…" entry remains unidentified, and hidden U.S. entries can't be excluded.
• JP 2007116995 date: I have publication as May 2007 and a confirming abstract (PLS regression, 220–300 nm, applicable to dsDNA), but I did not pull the JP front page itself.
• Anticipation is a high bar and I have deliberately not asserted any § 102 anticipation; where a reference is close, I have said so and labeled it § 103. Any actual invalidity position would require the full granted claim text (from PatentCenter) and element‑by‑element charting — which the prior section correctly noted was truncated in the supplied full text.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before building the obviousness analysis.

Let me retrieve the exact granted claim set and the specific prior-art citations.

I hit the tool-call limit, so this analysis is built on the granted claim text I retrieved (from the patent's own PDF) plus the prior art identified in the searches. I flag every place where I lack verified content.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,126,233 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Governing law: Pre-AIA § 103 (priority 2011‑03‑01, filed 2012‑02‑29). The analysis therefore uses the Graham v. John Deere framework: (1) scope/content of prior art, (2) differences from the claims, (3) level of ordinary skill, (4) secondary considerations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), governs motivation to combine (a POSITA's common sense / "predictable results" rationale is sufficient; the reference need not explicitly suggest the combination).

0. Correction to the previously generated claim summary (flagging a contradiction)

The earlier summary described claim 1 as reciting "at least one spectrum representative for a base pair being any of AT or GC or AU." That is not the granted claim. The granted claim 1, read from the granted patent's own PDF (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/af/6c/66/ffd21884bb5e48/US10126233.pdf), is materially narrower:

1. A computer-implemented method for analyzing UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data of a sample comprising DNA, the method comprising:
receiving UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data of the sample;
fitting the UV‑VIS spectrophotometer data of the DNA in the sample according to instructions run by a processing unit, wherein fitting comprises taking into account a set of exactly two reference spectra representative of two distinct base pair contents, the base pair being guanine‑cytosine (GC); and
deriving from the fitting run by the processing unit a quantification of an amount of DNA.

So the granted method claim is limited to (a) DNA, (b) exactly two reference spectra, (c) GC base-pair content, and it excludes AU/RNA from the method claim. The broader "at least one spectrum … AT or GC or AU" language survives only in the system claim (consistent with the corresponding granted EP/ES claim 12, which recites "al menos un espectro representativo de un par de bases siendo cualquiera de AT, GC o AU" — see http://www.oepm.es/pdf/ES/0000/000/02/54/30/ES-2543031_T3.pdf). This narrowing is highly significant for § 103 and should drive any invalidity theory. (Caveat: I have the claim‑1 text verbatim; I do not have the full granted dependent‑claim set verbatim, so the mapping below of claims 3–16 is reconstructed and should be verified against PatentCenter.)

1. Scope and content of the prior art

Key point: The patent's own specification concedes that reference‑spectrum linear‑combination fitting by least squares was known. The only asserted point of novelty is the choice of reference spectra — i.e., using base‑pair (GC) reference spectra. Tataurov supplies exactly that choice.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

Circa March 2011, a POSITA would be a person with (a) an M.S. or Ph.D. in analytical chemistry, biophysics, biochemistry, or a related discipline, or a B.S. with several years of bench experience, and (b) working knowledge of (i) UV‑VIS absorbance spectroscopy of nucleic acids and (ii) multivariate spectral deconvolution / least‑squares curve resolution. This is a routine level; the claim requires nothing beyond ordinary programming of a processor to execute a least‑squares fit.

3. Element-by-element mapping of granted claim 1

Every element is present in the art. The only question is motivation and the "exactly two" / "GC" specificity.

4. The primary § 103 combination, with articulated motivation

Combination A (primary): Tataurov 2008 in view of Spjøtvoll 1982 (further in view of the admitted standard UV‑quantitation art)

Why a POSITA would combine them (KSR motivation):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. Both references address characterizing a chemical/mixture sample from its optical spectrum and decomposing the measured spectrum into contributions of components. Tataurov supplies the nucleic‑acid‑specific component spectra and the discovery that GC content governs the dsDNA spectrum; Spjøtvoll supplies the well‑known mathematics (constrained least‑squares / linear combination of reference spectra) for extracting the amounts of those components. Combining a known analytical algorithm with a known set of reference spectra is the paradigm of an obvious combination — "arranging old elements … each performing the same function it had been known to perform." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.

2. Tataurov expressly frames the problem the patent purports to solve. The patent's stated problem is that UV‑VIS spectra of complex DNA samples have "broad" overlapping features and "still has not found its breakthrough due to the lack of an accurate and efficient analysis technique." Tataurov (2008) directly addresses the inability to predict/model dsDNA spectra at wavelengths other than 260 nm and provides a base‑composition model covering 215–310 nm — the exact informational gap.

3. The "exactly two" limitation is a predictable optimization. Tataurov teaches a two‑parameter base‑composition model (AT vs. GC contributions). Selecting the two extreme‑GC reference spectra as the basis is the minimal, expected way to span that model. The patent's own specification concedes the underlying empirical finding: "the spectral variation for DNA with randomly generated sequences having a sufficient length can be fully explained taking into account the GC content, and can be accurately fit using two spectra representative for samples having distinct GC content." Where the claimed result follows as a matter of course from the prior art's teaching, the claim is obvious. KSR ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior‑art elements according to their established functions"); In re Peterson (optimizing a recognized result‑effective parameter is obvious).

4. Reasonable expectation of success. Spjøtvoll had already demonstrated the method on light‑absorbance data with constrained least squares, so applying it to Tataurov's GC‑parameterized dsDNA spectra would have a reasonable expectation of yielding accurate component amounts.

Predicted difficulty for the patentee: Claim 1 has no non‑obvious limitation left. It is "receive data → least‑squares fit with two GC reference spectra → read off amount." Each step, and the combination, is taught or suggested.

Combination B (secondary): Add standard A₂₆₀ quantitation art

• Gallagher (1998) and Desjardins/Conklin (2010) supply the "deriving … a quantification of an amount of DNA" step via Beer–Lambert conversion. This is an entirely conventional step; if the examiner treats "quantification" as requiring a specific conversion, these references close it.

Combination C (for the ss‑ vs ds‑spectrum distinction, if attacked)

• Cavaluzzi & Borer (2004) and Kallansrud & Ward (1996) teach that the extinction coefficients of duplex (paired) nucleotides differ from those of the corresponding unpaired nucleotides (hypochromism). These directly support the concept of a distinct "base‑pair" reference spectrum, supplying (with Tataurov and Spjøtvoll) the complete rationale for using paired‑base reference spectra rather than only free‑nucleobase spectra.

5. The system claim (broader) — even more clearly obvious

The granted system claim recites an input means, a processing means programmed to fit using "at least one spectrum representative for a base pair being any of AT or GC or AU," and an output means. Because this claim is broader than method claim 1 (any one base‑pair spectrum, any of AT/GC/AU), it is a fortiori obvious over the Tataurov + Spjøtvoll combination. The input/output means and programmed processor are conventional hardware/software elements performing their known functions — the classic "generic computer implementation" of an analytical algorithm. (Note this is also where an eligibility attack under Alice/Mayo would be raised, but that is a § 101 issue, not § 103.)

6. Dependent claims — cumulative obviousness

Assuming the dependent claims track the pre‑grant/EP set (numbers approximate; verify against PatentCenter), each adds only known subject matter:

• ≥ 50/100 base pairs — Tataurov's model is validated over oligomers of known length; a POSITA selecting longer strands to obtain a stable GC‑based fit is routine optimization.
• Combination of base‑pair and separate‑nucleobase reference spectra — Cavaluzzi & Borer / Kallansrud & Ward (ss vs. ds extinction coefficients) make it obvious to include both types.
• Difference spectra (base‑pair minus separate nucleobase) — Mergny et al., "Thermal difference spectra: a specific signature for nucleic acid structures," Nucleic Acids Res. (2005) expressly teaches that difference spectra of nucleic acids are informative signatures. Forming the difference of a duplex spectrum and the corresponding unpaired‑base spectrum is a routine arithmetic operation in view of Tataurov's ss/ds teaching.
• PCR application (quantify dsDNA formed, without purifying) — Known that dNTPs dominate A₂₆₀ absorbance and mask amplicon contributions (admitted in the specification itself; also standard PCR analytics knowledge). Adding a "PCR‑mix"/background reference spectrum so the fit can operate on unpurified mixtures is an obvious design choice in view of Spjøtvoll's constrained fitting.
• Contaminant spectral components (trimethylglycine, guanidinethiocyanate, phenol, EDTA, proteins, hemoglobin, sodium azide) — Routine: these are the standard reagents/contaminants in nucleic‑acid extraction and PCR, and Spjøtvoll's method is expressly extensible to plural components/constraints. Including a known interferent as an additional reference spectrum is the ordinary use of the method.
• Scattering/turbidity components — Baseline/scattering correction (e.g., λ⁻⁴ Rayleigh/turbidity terms) is textbook UV‑VIS practice; adding such a component to a least‑squares fit is conventional.
• UV‑VIS range dependent claim — a range selection; obvious given the disclosed 215–310 nm working range of Tataurov.

7. Anticipated rebuttals and how they fare

• "Tataurov only predicts spectra; it doesn't fit a measured spectrum." Not a saving difference: Spjøtvoll (and the admitted background) supplies fitting; Tataurov supplies the reference spectra. Motivation exists because the whole point of a predictive model is to generate reference spectra usable in a fitting routine.
• "Spjøtvoll is 1982 and generic (amino acids)." Age is irrelevant; a reference in a related field is analogous art, and the patent's own background concedes the least‑squares/reference‑spectrum method was known in the nucleic‑acid spectroscopy context. A POSITA would look to standard chemometrics.
• "The 'exactly two GC spectra' result was surprising." Weak: the specification itself frames the two‑spectra sufficiency as an observation about long DNA, and Tataurov already taught GC content as the controlling variable. Under KSR/In re Peterson, discovering that a known parameter (GC) is the dominant one, then using the minimal two‑point basis for it, is ordinary optimization, not invention.
• "Unexpected results / long‑felt need (PCR without purification)." This is the strongest potential secondary consideration and would need evidentiary support (nexus to the claimed GC‑two‑spectra feature, comparative data). At the pleading/analysis stage the patentee has not shown a nexus, and the specification itself ties the benefit to the previously‑known least‑squares framework.

8. Bottom line

The strongest, most defensible § 103 challenge is:

Tataurov et al. (2008) in view of Spjøtvoll et al. (1982), optionally in further view of the admitted reference‑spectrum/least‑squares art and standard UV nucleic‑acid quantitation literature (Gallagher 1998; Desjardins & Conklin 2010), and, for the ss/ds and difference‑spectra dependent claims, Cavaluzzi & Borer (2004), Kallansrud & Ward (1996), and Mergny et al. (2005).

Under this combination, every element of granted claim 1 — and the system claim — is taught or suggested, and the motivation (same field, same problem, a known algorithm applied to a known parameterization, predictable results) is straightforward under KSR. The "exactly two GC reference spectra" limitation, though narrower than the claim the earlier summary described, is the kind of optimization of a discovered dominant variable that KSR and In re Peterson hold obvious.

9. Explicit uncertainties (do not overstate)

1. Claim text. Claim 1 is verified verbatim from the granted PDF. The full granted dependent‑claim set is NOT verified — I could not pull the complete claim listing; the dependent‑claim discussion is reconstructed from the pre‑grant publication (US 2013/0332084, claims 23–41) and the EP/ES grant. Verify against USPTO PatentCenter before relying on any dependent claim.
2. Prior‑art content. I verified the Tataurov and Spjøtvoll disclosures (titles/abstracts/venues). I did not retrieve the actual disclosures of US 7,786,295 B or EP 0152451 A (applicant‑cited at ¶[0008]); do not assert what they teach. Cavaluzzi & Borer, Kallansrud & Ward, Mergny, Gallagher, and Desjardins/Conklin are cited from search results (a PTAB exhibit list and citing literature) but were not individually opened — treat them as supporting, and confirm their full text before use in a formal challenge.
3. Prosecution history unknown. I do not have the file wrapper. Because the method claim was narrowed from the broad "at least one … AT/GC/AU" concept (still present in the system claim) to "exactly two … GC," it is likely the examiner cited art against the broader concept. Any invalidity contention should be built with the prosecution history (prosecution estoppel may constrain the patentee's claim‑construction arguments and could help or hurt). This is a gap worth closing.
4. Litigation. As previously reported, no litigation against US 10,126,233 is confirmed; only a Darts‑IP "family has litigation" flag exists (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10126233/en). This § 103 analysis is independent of any such case.