Short Summary
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 41 claims of HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition asserts that the examiner never considered the Karasiuk‑Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba teachings and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2024-01491), Eunsung Global Corp. challenges 41 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, which covers devices and methods for treating skin via microdermabrasion. The challenger alleges that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because they are obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references: Karasiuk (microdermabrasion system), Palmer (multi‑container fluid delivery), Greenberg (microdermabrasion with pneumatic source), and Trueba (computer‑controlled fluid delivery with touch screen). The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §325(d) is unwarranted, noting that the examiner did not consider these references during prosecution. No institution decision has been made, and the case remains pending while related district‑court and ITC proceedings continue against HydraFacial.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Eunsung Global Corp. vs HydraFacial LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLCvsPayRange LLC.
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
Astera Manufacturing Limited et al.vsElectraLED Inc.
Astera Manufacturing and Chauvet & Sons have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21‑28 of ElectraLED’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,651,245, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple LED‑lighting prior‑art references.
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.