IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Single-cell sequencing patent lawsuit between biotechnology companies proceeds to trial, (Aug 7, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The asserted patents did not require target molecules to have a known individual identity, leaving genuine factual disputes over whether the accused products practiced the claimed methods.

A federal district court in Delaware has denied a single-cell sequencing company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent dispute involving single-cell molecular analysis technology. The court concluded that the disputed claim terms "target molecules" and "nucleic acid targets" did not require that molecules have a known individual identity before labeling, thereby rejecting the defendant's proposed claim construction. Because that construction formed the basis of the defendant's non-infringement arguments, the court found that genuine disputes of material fact remained for trial (Scale Biosciences, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01597-CJB (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiffs Scale Biosciences, Inc. and Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. develop technologies for single-cell sequencing and molecular analysis. Defendant Parse Biosciences, Inc. develops products used for high-throughput single-cell sequencing and gene-expression analysis.

The dispute involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,626,442 (the ’442 patent), (the ’256 patent), 11,512,341 (the ’341 patent), and 11,634,752 (the ’752 patent). The patents generally relate to methods for detecting, identifying, and quantifying target molecules in individual cells while preserving cell-specific information through unique molecular tagging. By the time of the present motion, however, the court had already invalidated the asserted claims of the ’752 patent for lack of written description and enablement, leaving only claim 11 of the ’442 patent and claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ’256 patent at issue in the summary judgment proceedings.

Scale and Roche sued Parse in 2022, alleging that Parse's Evercode product lines and related sequencing kits infringed the asserted patents. Parse denied infringement and later moved for summary judgment, arguing that its accused products did not literally infringe the remaining asserted claims. According to Parse, the patents required "target molecules" to be specific molecules whose individual identities were known before the labeling process began, whereas its accused products performed untargeted whole-transcriptome sequencing by labeling all RNA molecules within a cell. The court, therefore, had to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms before addressing infringement.

Claim construction. The court rejected Parse's proposed construction. It found that neither the claim language nor the patent specification required a target molecule to possess a known individual identity before the claimed methods were performed. Instead, the patents expressly defined "target molecule" as a molecule of interest being detected or quantified.

The court also pointed to specification language stating that a target molecule could have either a known or an unknown structure or sequence, directly contradicting Parse's argument that the molecule's identity had to be known beforehand. Citing Martek Bioscience Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court emphasized that when a patent expressly defines a claim term, the patentee's definition governs.

Patent specification. Further, the court concluded that other portions of the specification supported the plaintiffs' interpretation. It noted disclosures describing the detection of "novel transcripts," whose identities and sequences were not necessarily known before sequencing. The specification also discussed cross-reactivity, in which a single unique binding agent could bind multiple target molecules, further undermining Parse's contention that every target molecule had to possess a known individual identity.

By contrast, the court found that Parse relied primarily on examples describing particular embodiments rather than mandatory claim limitations. Invoking the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court declined to import limitations from preferred embodiments into the claims.

Extrinsic evidence. Parse also relied on a later patent application by one of the inventors and other extrinsic evidence to support its construction. The court found those materials unpersuasive. It observed that the later patent application contained a substantially identical definition of "target molecules" to that in the asserted patents and also described the use of poly-dT primers to hybridize with target RNA sequences. Accordingly, the extrinsic evidence did not overcome the intrinsic record.

The court therefore construed the disputed terms to mean nucleic acid molecules of interest that are being detected or quantified, and that need not be specific molecules with a known individual identity.

Non-infringement. Applying that construction, the court concluded that Parse was not entitled to summary judgment. Parse's accused products perform whole-transcriptome sequencing using poly-T and random hexamer primers to label mRNA molecules within cells. Under the court's construction, a reasonable jury could conclude that those mRNA molecules constituted the claimed target molecules or nucleic acid targets.

The plaintiffs' expert also presented evidence that the accused products targeted only mRNA molecules, not proteins, lipids, or double-stranded DNA, creating a factual dispute over whether each limitation of the asserted claims was satisfied. Because infringement remained a question of fact, summary judgment was inappropriate. The court cited Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) to emphasize that infringement is ultimately a factual issue once claim construction has been resolved.

Outcome. Having rejected Parse's proposed claim construction and found genuine disputes regarding whether the accused products practiced the asserted methods, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. Thus, the remaining infringement claims involving the ’442 and ’256 patents will proceed to trial.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-01597-CJB.

Judge: Burke, C.

Attorneys: Kelly E. Farnan (Richards, Layton & Finger, PA) for Scale Biosciences, Inc. Karen L. Pascale (Stargatt & Taylor LLP) for Parse Biosciences, Inc.

Companies: Scale Biosciences, Inc.; Parse Biosciences, Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews