Delaware Court Rules Non-Infringement in Digital Pathology Patent Dispute

Introduction

In a significant digital pathology patent dispute, the Delaware District Court entered final judgment of non-infringement in favor of Morphle Labs, Inc. on January 21, 2026, closing a 600-day litigation battle that hinged entirely on claim construction. OptraSCAN, Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-00649) alleged that Morphle’s HemoLens 16, MorphoLens 240, and MorphoLens 6 slide readers infringed two imaging patents — U.S. Patent Nos. US10338365B2 and US10586376B2. Rather than proceeding to trial, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment after the court issued its claim construction opinion in November 2025, a strategic signal that OptraSCAN’s infringement theory could not survive the court’s interpretation of its own patent claims. For patent litigators, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the rapidly expanding digital pathology and medical imaging space, this case offers critical lessons in claim drafting, litigation strategy, and freedom-to-operate analysis.

Case Overview

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case involved two digital pathology imaging patents directed to automated capture, processing, or analysis of digitized tissue slide images—core functionality in modern AI-assisted pathology workflows.

• • US10338365B2 — Directed to digital pathology imaging systems, covering technical elements of slide scanning architecture.
• • US10586376B2 — A related patent covering complementary imaging claim elements within the same technology family.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

OptraSCAN filed its original complaint on May 31, 2024, followed by a First Amended Complaint (D.I. 11) that refined the asserted claims and accused products. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the Delaware District Court — a jurist with substantial patent litigation experience on the federal bench.

The litigation proceeded through the standard Delaware district court patent track. The pivotal milestone arrived on November 20, 2025, when the court issued its Opinion and Order on Claim Construction (D.I. 80), construing disputed terms across the asserted claims of both patents. This Markman ruling proved dispositive.

Following claim construction, both parties assessed litigation viability and, on January 16, 2026, filed a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment of Non-Infringement — effectively ending the case without trial. The court entered final judgment on January 21, 2026, closing the matter after approximately 600 days. Morphle’s remaining defenses and counterclaims — including any invalidity challenges — were dismissed without prejudice as moot.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court entered final judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims of both US10338365B2 and US10586376B2 in favor of Morphle Labs, Inc. No damages were awarded to OptraSCAN. No injunctive relief was issued. The judgment is final and appealable, with any costs or attorney’s fees motions deferred until 21 days after Federal Circuit mandate or expiration of the appeal deadline.

Claim Construction as the Decisive Factor

The case’s resolution through joint stipulation — rather than a contested trial or summary judgment motion — reveals that claim construction functionally determined the outcome. After the court construed the disputed claim terms in its November 2025 Markman order, OptraSCAN’s counsel and Morphle’s defense team collectively concluded that, under the court’s adopted constructions, Morphle’s accused products did not infringe the asserted claims as a matter of law.

This outcome reflects a well-documented pattern in Delaware patent litigation: a plaintiff’s infringement theory is often built on a preferred, broader claim interpretation. When the court adopts narrower constructions — particularly for technical terms in imaging or software-adjacent patents — the gap between the accused product’s architecture and the claim scope becomes unbridgeable without proceeding to a legally untenable trial.

The specific claim terms construed by Chief Judge Choe-Groves are not detailed in publicly available final judgment records, but the parties’ decision to jointly stipulate rather than contest the infringement question strongly implies the constructions were adverse to OptraSCAN’s reading of how the ‘365 and ‘376 patent claims mapped to Morphle’s slide scanner technology.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces several important doctrinal and strategic points:

• • Markman hearings remain outcome-determinative in technically complex patent disputes. A single unfavorable construction of a key claim term can collapse an otherwise well-developed infringement theory.
• • Joint stipulations post-Markman are a recognized, cost-efficient resolution mechanism. They preserve appellate rights for the plaintiff while avoiding the expense of summary judgment briefing or trial preparation.
• • The dismissal of Morphle’s counterclaims without prejudice means invalidity challenges to the ‘365 and ‘376 patents were never adjudicated — leaving those patents nominally valid and potentially available for reassertion against other defendants or in reframed litigation.