Last updated: February 4, 2026
Case Overview
Abaxis Bioscience LLC filed patent infringement litigation against HBT Labs Inc. in the District of New Jersey on December 13, 2018. The complaint alleges HBT Labs infringed multiple patents related to blood diagnostic testing technology. The case number is 2:18-cv-17304.
Patents in Dispute
The patents at issue include US Patent Nos. 8,970,523; 9,076,512; 8,904,768; and 9,116,790, all assigned to Abaxis. These patents cover methods and systems for blood testing, specifically involving reagents and detection techniques used in blood analysis instruments.
Claims and Allegations
Abaxis asserts that HBT Labs' blood diagnostic devices infringe these patents through the use of reagents and detection methods comparable to those described in the patents. The complaint details specific claims of infringement, including direct infringement of method claims and inducement or contributory infringement of system claims.
Legal Proceedings
- Filing: Complaint filed on December 13, 2018 in the District of New Jersey.
- Defendants' Response: HBT Labs filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2019, arguing non-infringement and invalidity.
- Discovery: Conducted between 2019 and 2020, focusing on technical documentation, product samples, and expert testimony.
- Summary Judgment: Filed in late 2020; plaintiff sought to establish infringement and patent validity.
- Trial: Scheduled for April 2021, but delayed due to procedural issues and negotiations.
Key Developments
- In August 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part HBT Labs' motion to dismiss, allowing some patent claims to proceed.
- During 2020-2021, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, but no resolution was publicly announced.
- In 2021, the court issued a Markman order, constraining the interpretation of key patent terms.
Patent Validity Challenges
HBT Labs contested the validity of the patents based on obviousness, anticipation, and prior art references. The validity of these patents remains a contested aspect, with a focus on the novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed blood testing methods.
Current Status
As of late 2022, the case remained active, with procedural hearings scheduled. The parties continued negotiations, but no settlement or trial verdict has been announced publicly. The case is indicative of ongoing patent enforcement efforts within biotechnology and diagnostic device sectors.
Analysis
Patent Strength and Litigation Strategy
- Abaxis holds a portfolio of blood testing patents with claims covering key methods and systems used in the industry.
- The case exemplifies aggressive patent enforcement, emphasizing claims related to reagent use and detection technology.
- HBT Labs’ defenses focus on patent invalidity citing prior art and non-infringement, typical in biotech patent disputes.
Implications for Biotech and Diagnostic Markets
- The litigation underscores the importance of patent claims encompassing core technology for blood diagnostics.
- It highlights the strategic use of patent litigation to protect market share or challenge competitors.
- The case signals potential for further patent disputes as blood testing becomes increasingly commoditized and technologically advanced.
Legal and Commercial Risks
- Protracted litigation can incur substantial costs and delay product launches.
- Patent invalidity challenges threaten patent holders’ competitive advantages.
- Patent enforcement actions influence licensing negotiations and can impact market access.
Market Impact and Industry Trends
- Similar patent disputes have occurred among biotech firms, emphasizing the need for robust patent portfolio management.
- The case signals ongoing focus on reagent and detection method innovations.
- Patent validity challenges remain a critical tool for defendants, influencing enforcement strategies.
Key Takeaways
- The case shows the use of patent litigation as a business strategy to defend proprietary blood testing technology.
- Patent validity remains a central issue, with prior art and obviousness concerns on both sides.
- Ongoing negotiations could influence the timing and outcome of the dispute.
- Patent claims covering core blood testing methods remain critical assets in the biotech industry.
- Jurisprudence on biotech patent issues continues to evolve, impacting enforcement and innovation dynamics.
FAQs
-
What patents are involved in this case?
US Patent Nos. 8,970,523; 9,076,512; 8,904,768; and 9,116,790, covering blood testing techniques.
-
What is HBT Labs' primary defense?
Challenging patent validity on grounds of prior art, obviousness, and non-infringement.
-
Has the case resulted in a settlement?
No publicly announced settlement as of 2022; negotiations are ongoing.
-
Why is patent validity a significant issue here?
It determines whether HBT Labs' products infringe valid patents or if the patents are vulnerable to invalidity claims.
-
How does this case impact the biotech industry?
It highlights the significance of patent rights in blood diagnostics and the use of litigation to defend or contest those rights.
Sources
[1] Court docket – District of New Jersey, Case 2:18-cv-17304.
[2] Patent documents – US Patent Nos. 8,970,523; 9,076,512; 8,904,768; 9,116,790.
[3] Public filings – motions, orders, and rulings from the proceedings.
