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
Anker Innovations Ltd.vsPowermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director's discretionary denial of an IPR on MES’s ‘225 patent covering mercury control technologies, arguing the petitions are timely, there are no real parties in interest, and the PTAB is the proper forum.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s final written decisions in two Netlist IPRs. Because the Director was recused, authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent, who affirmed the PTAB decisions as final.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
Luxottica of America Inc.vsE-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
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.