3D Printing

CELLINK brands Organovo’s 3D bioprinting patent lawsuit “invalid”

The nominations for the2021 3D Printing Industry Awardsare now open. Who do you think should make the shortlists for this year’s show? Have your say now.

CELLINKhas challenged accusations that it contravened the patents of fellow 3D bioprinting firmOrganovo, labelling the company’s claims “invalid” and saying that it has not infringed on its Intellectual Property (IP).

Organovo isreportedly寻求版税后宣称CELLINK出售technologies relating to the ‘3D printing of tissues and drug development,’ which relied upon its IP. The move ramps up tensions between the firms, after CELLINK filed a similar suit last month, claiming that no fewer than five of Organovo’s patents infringe upon its own, as well as those of its acquired subsidiaries.

For its part, CELLINK has stated that “while it respects valid IP, Organovo’s patent claims are invalid,” and if its lawsuit is successful, this “could lead to the cancellation of the challenged claims in Organovo’s patents.” The firm adds that court cases aside, it remains “committed to evolving the future of medicine.”

Organovo did not provide a comment for this article when contacted by 3D Printing Industry.

CELLINK’s BIO X 3D bioprinter (pictured) is reportedly the main subject of Organovo’s legal appeal. Image via CELLINK.

A 3D bioprinting brawl

CELLINK first made itscaseagainst Organovo on June 3 2021, but details about the proceedings are only emerging now, due to an earlier non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the firms. In what therefore marks the companies’ latest in a series of disputes, CELLINK has opted to file a patent infringement suit against Organovo before the Delaware District Court, under case number ‘1:21-cv-00832.’

Through its lawsuit, the company is effectively alleging that Organovo’sUS9149952B2,US9855369B2,US8931880B2,US9227339B2,US9315043B2bioprinting patents are in breach of its own. The five legal documents in question are (like many patents) broad in scope, and cover “bioprinters comprising one or more printer heads,” including the “devices, systems and methods” of fabricating tissues.

Interestingly, the latter IP makes reference to automation, a trend that’s swept the bioprinting industry in recent months, and “potential improvements” that can be made to achieve this, while CELLINK also claims thatClemson University’sUS7051654B2patent regarding the “ink-jet printing of viable cells,” andUniversity of Missouri’sUS9752116B2on “self assembling cell aggregates,” encroach on its IP.

At present, the case remains ongoing, thus there’s little in the public realm to suggest how it’s likely to pan out. However, it’s known that CELLINK is being represented byMorris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, andRopes & Grayin the case, and that it’s seeking to instigate IPR proceedings against Organovo’s patents, essentially challenging their very patentability.

CELLINK’s complaint also makes reference to itsrecently-acquired MatTek CorporationandVisikol Incsubsidiaries, both of which have substantial biotechnology portfolios, thus the case’s scope may well extend beyond the patents owned directly by the firm itself.

A scientists experimenting using MatTek's in-vitro cellular technology.
CELLINK’s case against Organovo references its subsidiary MatTek Corporation, which it acquired last year. Photo via MatTek.

Organovo’s troubled past

Although Organovo’s bioprinting footprint is significantly smaller than that of CELLINK, it does have a storied history in the sector. After unveiling its firstbioprinted kidney tissueback in 2015, the firm went public on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker ‘ONVO,’ before makingfurther drug testingandregenerative tissueadvances with its technology.

However, in August 2019, Organovo was forced to explore “strategic alternatives” when it discovered that its approach to fabricating liver tissuerequired significant redevelopment, and the company has since made efforts to preserve cash, but its website has remained devoid of any updates on the progress of its technologies for the last two years.

In an effort to revive the firm’s fortunes, Organovo’s leadership later announced a merger withTarveda Therapeuticsin December 2019. However, the company’s ex-CEO Keith Murphy published a scathingletterat the time, criticizing the board’s record, saying that they “couldn’t be trusted at all,” and encouraged stockholders not to vote for the plan.

Tissue engineer loads Organovo’s proprietary bioprinter to print fully human tissue. Photo via Organoco
Organovo encountered issues around its liver 3D bioprinting technology back in 2019. Photo via Organovo

Duly answering Murphy’s call to action, shareholders then chose to vote down the merger, and it has since been called-off entirely. In the past, Organovo has also fought to salvage its reputation in Delaware’s courtrooms, and the firm won a high-profilecaseagainst investor Georgi Dimitrov, in which he was found guilty of carrying out a ‘smear campaign,’ and received a $38 million default judgment.

Now, with its legal action against CELLINK, Organovo is seeking to challenge perceived infringements on three patents of its own, which are said to be relevant to theBIO X3D bioprinter, in addition to another it has exclusively licensed from the University of Missouri. Given that the latter is also mentioned in CELLINK’s lawsuit, it’s possible that Organovo’s claim therefore represents an indirect rebuttal.

Either way, according to a complaintfiledon July 27 2021 in a federal court in Waco, Texas, Organovo is seeking cash compensation for the patents CELLINK is alleged to have infringed upon, as well as a court order blocking the further use of its IP.

Bioprinting’s growing allure

而生物打印整个器官仍然一些way away, the technology is increasingly showing end-use potential, thus its future applications and probable profitability has begun to attract the attention of the industry’s biggest firms.3D Systems, for instance, has made significant progress in itsPrint to Perfusionregenerative medicine program, andacquired bioprinting firm Alleviin May 2021.

Desktop Metalhas also begun to show considerable interest in bioprinting technologies, firstlaunching Desktop Healthin March 2021, and its subsidiary laterbought Beacon Bio. In doing so, the company acquired the rights to Beacon Bio’s ‘Phonograft’ 3D bioprinting technology, which is designed to enable the regeneration of the human eardrum.

Elsewhere, the EU has backedEPFLspin-outReadily3D’sattempts to 3D print aliving model of the human pancreas. Working as part of the broader‘Enlight’ program, the company has reportedly developed its technology to the point that it’s now capable of fabricating stem cell-based biological tissues inside just 30 seconds.

The nominations for the2021 3D Printing Industry Awardsare now open. Who do you think should make the shortlists for this year’s show? Have your say now.

To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, don’t forget to subscribe to the3D Printing Industry newsletteror follow us onTwitteror liking our page onFacebook.

For a deeper-dive into additive manufacturing, you can now subscribe to ourYoutubechannel, featuring discussion, de-briefs and shots of 3D printing in-action.

Are you looking for a job in the additive manufacturing industry? Visit3D Printing Jobsfor a selection of roles in the industry.

Featured image shows a CELLINK BIO X 3D bioprinter, the machine which is reportedly the main subject of Organovo’s legal appeal. Image via CELLINK.