Notable Successes

  • 10x Genomics, Inc. and President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Bruker Nano, Inc., and Bruker Corp. (D. Del.) (representing Plaintiff 10x Genomics)
  • Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and Bruker Nano, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. (D. Del.) (representing Defendant 10x Genomics)

Tensegrity helped assert patents by luminary geneticist Dr. George Church that are foundational to Bruker’s and 10x’s in situ spatial analysis platforms. Following Tensegrity’s success at claim construction, and the institution of IPRs against Bruker’s asserted patents, Tensegrity helped secure a settlement of 10x’s patent infringement allegations against Bruker in which Bruker paid 10x $68 million in addition to ongoing royalties on sales of its spatial biology products, while granting 10x global patent cross-licenses to Bruker’s portfolio and withdrawing all other worldwide claims. Bruker’s dismissed counterclaims included patent infringement and antitrust allegations against 10x.

  • 10x Genomics, Inc. and Prognosys Biosciences Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc. (D. Del.) (representing Plaintiffs 10x and Prognosys)

Tensegrity won a jury trial victory on behalf of 10x and Prognosys in the District of Delaware. The jury awarded 10x and Prognosys $31 million in lost profits and royalties found NanoString to be a willful infringer of all asserted patents relating to assays and systems for spatial biological analysis. In December 2024, the trial court granted 10x’s motion for a permanent injunction against NanoString (acquired by Bruker Corp.). In May 2025, Tensegrity assisted 10x in securing a global settlement with Bruker of all pending claims.

  • Certain Medical Programmers with Printed Circuit Boards, Components Thereof, and Products and Systems for Use with the Sam, International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-1396 (Complainant: Medtronic) (representing Respondent Axonics).

Medtronic sued Axonic for infringement of two patents and sought an importation ban on multiple Axonics medical implants. Tensegrity secured termination of claims relating to one patent before the evidentiary hearing. On the last day of the evidentiary hearing, the parties reached an agreement that led to the confidential settlement resolving all outstanding litigation between Medtronic and Axonics. The Administrative Law Judge commented on the final day of the hearing as the case was being stayed, “I don’t know how to find infringement,” confirming Tensegrity’s successfully defense of Axonics.

  • 10x Genomics, Inc. and President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Vizgen, Inc. (D. Del.) (representing Plaintiff 10x Genomics)
Following Tensegrity’s February 2025 presentation of its case-in-chief to the jury and before Vizgen presented its defenses or counterclaims, the parties reached a global settlement favorable to 10x, including dismissal with prejudice of Vizgen’s patent and state-law counterclaims. Tensegrity and 10x had previously won dismissal at summary judgment of Vizgen’s antitrust counterclaims against 10x, in which Vizgen had sought over $1 billion in trebled damages against 10x and Harvard.
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Axonics, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2024) and IPR Nos. IPR2020-00679, IPR2020-00680, IPR2020-00712, IPR2020-00713, IPR2020-00715 (representing Axonics)
Tensegrity secured a major victory on behalf of Axonics in this seven-patent dispute where Medtronic was seeking up to $600 million in damages. Tensegrity took over Axonics’s defense in the district court case and in related IPR proceedings after the IPR proceedings failed to invalidate any asserted claims of any of the seven patents. In the IPR proceedings, Tensegrity successfully argued before the Federal Circuit that the IPR decisions on four of five challenged patents should be vacated and remanded. In district court, Tensegrity first obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on two of the asserted patents, and two other patents were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Tensegrity then won an eight-day jury trial that resulted in a finding that Axonics did not infringe any asserted claim of any of the three remaining patents.
  • 10x Genomics, Inc. and Prognosys Biosciences Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc. (D. Del.) (representing Plaintiffs 10x and Prognosys)
In November 2023, Tensegrity won a jury trial victory on behalf of 10x and Prognosys in the District of Delaware. The jury found NanoString to be a willful infringer of all asserted patents relating to assays and systems for spatial biological analysis. In December 2024, the trial court granted 10x’s motion for a permanent injunction against NanoString (acquired by Bruker Corp.).
  • Certain Microfluidic Systems and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1100) (representing 10x Genomics, Inc.) (Respondent Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.) (Feb.)

Tensegrity secured a major victory on behalf of 10x in this patent infringement matter against Bio-Rad before the International Trade Commission. Following hearing, each of 10x’s four asserted patents concerning gene sequencing technologies were found valid, and Bio-Rad was found to infringe three 10x patents in violation of Section 337. In February 2020, the ITC issued a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order prohibiting the importation of infringing Bio-Rad microfluidic products into the United States.

  • Auriga Innovations, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, HP Inc., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00779-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Within weeks after Tensegrity filed suit against Intel and several of its OEM customers in the Western District of Texas, alleging that Intel desktop and server processors infringed Auriga’s patents covering core features of tri-gate field effect transistors (“FinFETs”), Intel agreed to take a license and pay substantial license fees to Auriga to resolve the dispute.

  • Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00923-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Tensegrity’s successful pursuit of antitrust claims against Cisco on behalf of Arista, based on Cisco’s anticompetitive conduct concerning its closure of the industry-standard Command Line Interface for networking equipment, along with Tensegrity’s successful invalidation of key Cisco patents, helped Arista turn the tables in its global patent battle with its larger competitor.  On the morning of the first day of trial on Arista’s claims, Tensegrity secured a settlement resolving all disputes between the parties and ensuring Arista’s freedom to operate.

  • Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Communications, LLC and Akamai Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-720-JAG (E.D. Va.) and Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Network, Inc., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-10253-GOA, 1:16-cv-12624-GAO (D. Mass)

Days before the first day of trial in Limelight’s suit against Akamai and following Tensegrity’s successful motions to limit the trial only to Limelight’s patent infringement claims (staying all of Akamai’s patent infringement counterclaims), Tensegrity secured a settlement including payment to Limelight and resolution of all claims in two ongoing litigations. This resolution marks the end of more than a decade of lawsuits between the competitors.

  • Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1034) (representing Complainant Memory Technologies, LLC) (Respondents SanDisk LLC, Western Digital Corp. Western Digital Techs., Inc., SanDisk Ltd., SanDisk Storage Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., and SanDisk SemiConductor (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.)

Tensegrity brought suit against Western Digital and its subsidiaries before the International Trade Commission to enforce MTL’s patents covering flash memory systems.  Following Tensegrity’s Markman briefing and hearing before the ITC, Western Digital took a worldwide, perpetual license to MTL’s Memory Patents.

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp. and Ricoh Electronics Inc. (Case No. 13-cv-474-SLR) (D. Del.)

Days before the first day of trial, following the Court’s order stating that an adverse inference on infringement would be applied at trial as a consequence of Ricoh’s failure to provide discovery sought in Tensegrity’s motion to compel, and while IV’s motions for summary judgment of no invalidity were pending, the parties reached a confidential agreement resolving all claims.

  • Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google Inc. (Civil Action Nos. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ and 1:13-cv-10153-RWZ) (D. Mass.)

Following a string of substantial wins defeating Google’s summary judgment motions and striking significant portions of Google’s expert reports, Tensegrity secured a confidential eve-of-trial settlement for client Skyhook Wireless. The settlement resolved Skyhook’s claims against Google for infringement of Skyhook’s patents on Wi-Fi location technology. Tensegrity took over as trial counsel for Skyhook after Skyhook suffered several setbacks in litigation, including the invalidation of two patents and judgment in favor of Google on Skyhook’s state court claims.

  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., et al. (Consolidated Civil Action Nos. 11-cv-163 and 11-cv-713 XR) (W.D. Tex.)

On the eve of the jury trial, Tensegrity secured a settlement of $280 million for client Wake Forest University Health Sciences, resolving Wake Forest’s claims against KCI for infringement of its pioneering “wound VAC” patents and for breach of contract claims for KCI’s repudiation of the parties’ license agreement.