Cytek Biosciences, a Fremont, California maker of spectral flow cytometers, is currently facing a patent infringement lawsuit from Beckman Coulter set for jury trial in August 2026, carries continuing financial obligations from a 2020 settlement of a trade secrets case brought by Becton, Dickinson and Company, and is under investigation for a potential class action tied to a May 2026 ransomware attack. Each Cytek lawsuit sits at a different stage, and each has different stakes for the company.
Beckman Coulter’s Patent Case Is Heading to Trial in August 2026
Beckman Coulter, a subsidiary of Danaher Corporation, sued Cytek on August 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.1CourtListener. Beckman Coulter Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences Inc. The original complaint asserted two flow cytometry patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,330,582 and U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443. Beckman Coulter demanded a jury trial.
A First Amended Complaint filed on January 9, 2025 expanded the dispute. Court filings identify at least two additional patents added to the case, referenced as patents ending in #106 (U.S. Patent No. 12,174,106) and #107.2BD6F / S3 Hosted Document. Beckman Coulter v. Cytek, Order on Motion to Stay Cytek filed answers with counterclaims in October 2024 and again in February 2025, though the substance of those counterclaims is not visible in the available public docket.1CourtListener. Beckman Coulter Inc. v. Cytek Biosciences Inc.
A claim construction (Markman) hearing took place on August 21, 2025. The trial is scheduled for August 17, 2026 before Chief Judge Colm Connolly, with a final pretrial conference on August 7, 2026. No settlement has been reported. Cytek disclosed in its 2025 earnings release that general and administrative expenses rose 36.7% year over year, “due primarily to higher patent litigation expenses.”3Cytek Biosciences Investor Relations. Cytek Biosciences Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025
Cytek’s Attempts to Pause the Case Have Failed
Cytek tried to slow the litigation on two tracks: patent challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and a motion asking the district court to pause the case in the meantime. Both tracks have collapsed.
In July 2025, Cytek filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against the #443 patent and told the court it planned to file post-grant review (PGR) petitions against the #106 and #107 patents. It then asked Judge Connolly to stay the district court case. The judge denied the motion on July 30, 2025, calling it “easy to decide.” He noted Cytek had not actually filed the PGR petitions and had refused to disclose the specific legal grounds it intended to assert, and wrote that Cytek “has failed to cite, and I am not aware of, any case granting a motion to stay based on hypothetical post-grant challenges that have not been filed, let alone instituted.”4IPDE. Court Denies Easy Stay Motion That Was Based on Hypothetical Future Patent Challenge
The PTAB petitions themselves also failed. The IPR against the #443 patent was denied on a discretionary basis on November 19, 2025.5IPverse / GreyB. IPR2025-01319, Cytek Biosciences v. Beckman Coulter The PGR against Patent No. 12,174,106 was denied institution on March 17, 2026.6IPverse / GreyB. PGR2025-00084, Cytek Biosciences v. Beckman Coulter Cytek requested refunds of its post-institution fees in both proceedings. With the PTAB path closed, the trial date holds.
The Danaher Subpoena Fight
Discovery has produced its own litigation. In March 2025, Cytek served third-party subpoenas on Danaher, seeking documents and deposition testimony about Danaher’s attempts to acquire Cytek in 2018 and 2021. Cytek initially demanded 24 categories of documents and 12 deposition topics before narrowing its requests.7U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Danaher Corp. v. Cytek Biosciences, Misc. No. 25-524-CFC
Danaher moved to quash. The court split the outcome. It quashed the document subpoena, finding the requests largely duplicated what Cytek had already obtained from Beckman Coulter and that formal valuation documents from the 2018 talks did not exist because those discussions were “rushed.” The court also rejected Cytek’s argument that Danaher’s interest in acquiring it was evidence of non-infringement, noting that “direct infringement is a strict-liability offense” and that Danaher’s internal views about a potential purchase said nothing about Cytek’s own intent for purposes of willfulness.
The court did order Danaher to produce a witness for a deposition of up to two hours on one narrow topic: how Danaher valued Cytek during the 2018 acquisition talks. The court found this relevant to damages, since a Beckman Coulter executive had testified he was not personally involved in setting the 2018 purchase price.7U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Danaher Corp. v. Cytek Biosciences, Misc. No. 25-524-CFC
The BD Trade Secrets Case Settled in 2020 but Still Costs Cytek Money
On February 13, 2018, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) sued Cytek and nine former BD employees in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.8CourtListener. Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc. BD alleged that Cytek, then primarily a service provider maintaining BD flow cytometers, had pivoted to building competing instruments using confidential information carried out by departing BD employees.
The complaint centered on “Project Newton,” a BD initiative launched around 2012 to develop a spectral flow cytometer. BD said the nine named employees had access to proprietary processing algorithms, hardware designs, and software code, and downloaded thousands of files onto removable storage devices before leaving for Cytek. According to BD, former principal engineer Ming Yan, who had headed Project Newton and became Cytek’s chief technology officer, alone downloaded at least 17,000 files.9Law.com. BD Complaint, Case No. 3:18-cv-00933-SK BD claimed the stolen information let Cytek bring its Aurora and Athena spectral flow cytometers to market far faster than through independent development, and that the products bore “striking similarities” to the instrument BD had been building internally.10Fierce Biotech. Becton Dickinson Sues Rival Cytek Biosciences, Claiming They Stole Trade Secrets
BD asserted claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, and California unfair competition law, along with breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion, among others.8CourtListener. Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc. The case settled before trial. On October 6, 2020, the parties entered into a “Settlement, License and Equity Issuance Agreement.”11U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Cytek Biosciences SEC Filing Under the deal, Cytek issued 2,087,545 shares of common stock to BD. BD granted Cytek a non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to certain BD patents and agreed not to enforce those patents against Cytek’s then-current instruments. Cytek agreed it would not challenge the validity, enforceability, or scope of the licensed BD patent claims in any legal proceeding. The settlement reportedly included annual payments from Cytek and legal fees estimated at around $20 million.12Purdue Cytometry. BD vs. Cytek Legal Case Spectral Flow Cytometry
The settlement cleared the way for Cytek’s initial public offering in July 2021. Cytek continues to carry a legal settlement liability on its balance sheet, with roughly $1.7 million in current obligations and $8.8 million in noncurrent obligations as of March 31, 2025.13U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Cytek Biosciences 10-Q, Q1 2025
A 2026 Ransomware Attack Has Drawn Class Action Interest
On May 2, 2026, a threat actor identified as “cmdorganization” claimed responsibility for a ransomware attack on Cytek, asserting that it had exfiltrated 7.36 terabytes of company data and threatening to leak it unless demands were met.14Dexpose. cmdorganization Launches Ransomware Attack on Cytek Biosciences According to a law firm investigating the incident, the types of data potentially exposed include names, Social Security numbers, addresses, payment information, service plans, payment histories, internal communications, and business records.
As of mid-2026, no class action has been formally filed. At least one plaintiffs’ firm is soliciting contact from affected customers and employees to assess the scope of the breach and potential claims.15Ahdoot & Wolfson. Cytek Biosciences Inc. Class Action Investigation If you believe your data was exposed in the incident, contacting one of the investigating firms is the mechanism by which any eventual class would be built.