Doctors and Patients Win, Wave Neuroscience Loses Patent Claims

On October 7, 2024, a federal judge ruled against Wave Neuroscience in its suit alleging patent infringement against PeakLogic, resulting in the invalidation of the asserted claims of two of Wave Neuroscience's patents. Judge Bencivengo granted summary judgment for PeakLogic holding that the asserted claims of the '259 patent and '554 patent were invalid.

DEL MAR, Calif., Nov. 2, 2024 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- On October 7, 2024, a federal judge ruled against Wave Neuroscience in its suit alleging patent infringement against PeakLogic, resulting in the invalidation of the asserted claims of two of Wave Neuroscience's patents. Judge Bencivengo granted summary judgment for PeakLogic holding that the asserted claims of the '259 patent and '554 patent were invalid.

The Court granted PeakLogic's motion to invalidate the asserted claims of Wave's '259 patent holding that the claimed method "describes nothing more than the natural phenomenon that a brain's intrinsic frequency can be altered by external stimuli and provides no significant instruction beyond claiming that it can be implemented to treat a patient with a brain disorder" and that "there is no inventive concept disclosed in the method."

Similarly, the Court granted PeakLogic's motion to invalidate the asserted claims of Wave '554 patent holding that the claimed methods "describe nothing more than the natural phenomenon that a brain's intrinsic frequency can be altered by external stimuli and provide no significant instruction regarding how it can be implemented to treat a patient with depression" and that "there is no inventive concept disclosed in the methods."

With respect to the remaining '354 patent, the Court denied the motion, holding that while the asserted claims are "directed to ineligible subject matter," there are material facts in dispute as to whether the asserted claims "involve more than performance of well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to a person of skill in the relevant field at the time the patent was filed."

PeakLogic remains confident that it will again prevail with regards to the remaining patent. Dr. Kevin T. Murphy, CEO of PeakLogic, commented, "Although this is an obvious win for our company, it's an even bigger win for physicians striving to personalize medicine for their patients."

Please read Court filings: Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. PeakLogic, Inc., 21cv1330-CAB-SBC | Casetext Search + Citator

Media Contact

C. Christie Criag, Team C3, 1 3107810007, [email protected], https://teamc3.agency

SOURCE Team C3