Short 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.
Detailed Summary
EndyMed Medical Ltd. has filed an opening IPR petition against Serendia, LLC's patent (10869812) covering microneedling skin treatment systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, citing multiple combinations of prior art references such as Mehta, Na’848, Lee, and Livneh. Specific grounds target independent claims (e.g., Claim 1) for anticipation by Mehta, while numerous dependent claims are challenged as obvious over various pairings of the cited art. The petition also raises issues regarding claim construction, particularly concerning the terms 'a desired distance' and 'a predetermined depth'.
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
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al.vsCole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,929,896, asserting that claims 1‑29 are obvious over three prior‑art patents. The petition includes a joint claim construction for “imputed entity” and seeks institution of the IPR under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Albany International Corp.vsVoith Patent GmbH
Albany International has filed an IPR petition challenging Voith’s 15‑claim paper‑machine clothing patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition details measurements showing the claimed loop‑density and seam‑loop ratio were known long before the patent’s priority date.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
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.