Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. v. University of British Columbia, No. 23-2227 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-2227
Decided
May 12, 2025
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit BRUKER CELLULAR ANALYSIS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,

Appellee

2023-2227

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-01249.

JUDGMENT

MARC DAVID PETERS, Turner Boyd LLP, San Mateo, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by KAREN IRENE BOYD, JENNIFER SERAPHINE, KEELEY IRENE VEGA.

MAX H. YUSEM, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by ERIC WILLIAM DITTMANN; RUDOLPH KIM, Palo Alto, CA; NAVEEN MODI, DANIEL ZEILBERGER, Washington, DC.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

May 12, 2025

Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. v. University of British Columbia, No. 23-2227 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-23-2227-20250512
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-2227-20250512

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error