Short Summary
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00145, Sinclair Pharma Limited and affiliates petition the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, which claims a skin‑treatment system with a console, multiple fluid containers, a handpiece, and a vacuum source. The petitioner contends that the invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining teachings from the Karasiuk, Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba references, arguing that the examiner never considered these combinations. The petition seeks cancellation of all 41 challenged claims and argues that discretionary denial under §325(d) is not warranted. No Board decision has been issued yet; the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. vs HydraFacial LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Inari Agriculture, Inc.vsCorteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsDivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.
Luxottica of America Inc.vsE-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of e‑Vision’s ’612 smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Bluetooth headset and voice‑assistant disclosures such as Howell, Gruber, Jannard‑740, and Osterhout.
Apple Inc.vsCOBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLCvsK.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of K.Mizra’s network‑quarantine patent, arguing obviousness over prior art (Freund, Ball, Pujare) and urging the Board to institute trial after a prior institution denial was deemed erroneous.
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.