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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,607,407 related to cleaning appliances. The challenger asserts that the patent is unpatentable under both §102 (anticipation) and §103 (obviousness).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLCvsTecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al.vsPurple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
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.