Industry Sector

Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases

522 decisions indexed

Page 18 of 18 · 522 total

patent terminated or settled · Jan 26, 2024

VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC

· IPR2024-00320

Vivitro Labs and the patent owner settled their IPR dispute over a biomedical device patent, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 26, 2024

VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC

· IPR2024-00320

VIVITRO Labs and Biomedical Device Consultants & Laboratories of Colorado have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,237,935, filing a joint motion to terminate the ongoing IPR and keep settlement documents confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Ilooda and Serendia have filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda’s participation in an IPR over U.S. Patent 10,869,812, citing a settlement of their dispute. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the parties also request the settlement be kept confidential.

patent null · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Ilooda Co. challenges Serendia's patent (10869812) in an IPR based on anticipation and obviousness, focusing on microneedling technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Mehta render multiple claims unpatentable through various combinations of elements.

patent instituted · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims in the dermatological treatment patent, primarily based on anticipation by reference Mehta. The Board rejected arguments for discretionary denial and proceeded with the IPR.

1 •••161718
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →