Eunsung Global Corp. v. HydraFacial LLC et al.

IPR2025-00452

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00452
Filing Date
13 January 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01061

TikTok Inc.vsDiStefano Website Innovations, LLC

TikTok has filed a petition to invalidate all 26 claims of DiStefano’s ’316 patent, asserting obviousness over Block, Arnold, Arora, and Ahlberg references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.

patentPGR2026-00021

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.vsBiofrontera Inc.

Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Biofrontera’s nanoemulsion patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Uhlmann and Palazzolo prior‑art references.

patentIPR2026-00105

Apple Inc.vsHBCU MESSAGING US LP

The USPTO denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions across six IPRs, leaving the institution rulings intact and preserving Apple’s challenge to HBCU’s patent.

patentIPR2025-01209

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent.

patentIPR2024-01387

Tableau Software, LLC et al.vsiCharts LLC

Tableau Software successfully instituted an IPR against iCharts LLC regarding patent 8271892 for data visualization technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on the preliminary record, advancing the challenge to trial.

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 →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call