Executive Summary
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. vs Serendia, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsBarco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Reed Semiconductor CorporationvsMonolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation challenged Monolithic Power Systems' '608 Patent, asserting that claims related to bootstrap refresh control circuits for DC-DC voltage converters are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references, including TI data sheets and patents by Galinski, Li, and Wong, to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.
Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast Cable Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications' patent covering BCN modulation/bit-loading. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting the combination of prior art references as obvious.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenged Nokia's patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,689,939) before the PTAB, arguing that claims related to mobile device user interfaces are obvious under Section 103. The challenger asserts that combining prior art teachings regarding limited access and UI enhancements results in predictable features.
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.
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.