Eunsung Global Corp. v. HydraFacial LLC et al.

IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00453
Decision Date
14 January 2025
Filing Date
14 January 2025

Detailed Summary

In Petition IPR2025-00453, Eunsung Global Corp. challenges HydraFacial LLC's U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477, which claims a skin‑treatment system with a manifold, handpiece, vacuum source, and control features. The petitioner asserts that claims 1‑20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103, relying on combinations of prior art such as Karasiuk, Palmer, Trueba, Wunsch, and Greenberg. The petition argues the examiner erred by not rejecting the claims based on these references and requests cancellation of all challenged claims.

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

patentPGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc.vs--

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.

patentIPR2026-00325

Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentIPR2026-00297

Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2026-00187

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.

patentIPR2026-00186

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.

patentIPR2026-00334

Pinterest, Inc.vs--

Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call