• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
360 results

EndyMed Medical Ltd. v. Serendia, LLC

Docket IPR2024-00844, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Aug. 1, 2024)
Carl DeFranco, Sheridan Snedden, Tina Hulse, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9320536
Patent Owner Serendia, LLC
Petitioner EndyMed Medical Ltd.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Jeisys Medical Inc. v. Serendia, LLC

Docket IPR2024-00384, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 8, 2024)
Carl DeFranco, Michael Woods, Scott Raevsky, Sheridan Snedden, Tina Hulse, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9320536
DeadlineDUE DATE 5: April 16, 2025 Petitioner’s sur-reply to the opposition to the motion to amend Motion to exclude evidence
DeadlineDUE DATE 6: April 23, 2025 Opposition to motion to exclude Request for pre-hearing conference
Patent Owner Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc.
Petitioner Endymed Medical
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Serendia LLC v. Aesthetics Biomedical Incorporated

Docket 2:22-cv-00015, Arizona District Court (Jan. 4, 2022)
Judge Douglas L Rayes, presiding
Patent
DivisionPhoenix
FlagsCLOSED, STD
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10058379; 10869812; 9320536; 9480836
9320536
9480836
Plaintiff SynKloud Technologies LLC
Plaintiff Serendia LLC
Defendant Aesthetics Biomedical Incorporated
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC v. Serendia, LLC

Docket IPR2022-00378, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 28, 2021)
Carl DeFranco, Sheridan Snedden, Tina Hulse, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9320536
Patent Owner Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 64 ORDER that pursuant to the parties' stipulation 63 , this matter is dismissed with prejudice, ...

Document SynKloud Technologies LLC et al v. Aesthetics Biomedical Incorporated, 2:22-cv-00015, No. 64 (D.Ariz. Nov. 21, 2023)
Aesthetics Biomedical Incorporated,
The Court having reviewed the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 63), and good cause appearing; IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this matter is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2023.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

38 Order on Motion: Order on Motion

Document IPR2024-00384, No. 38 Order on Motion - Order on Motion (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2025)
ENDYMED MEDICAL LTD. and
1 This is a consolidated Order for all three proceedings.
The parties shall not use this heading in any subsequent papers.
Following joinder of petitioners EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical, Inc. (collectively, “EndyMed”) in the above-identified proceedings, we extended the due date for the final written decision in each proceeding from July 22, 2025, to December 22, 2025.
2 We refer only to the paper in IPR2024-00383.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

37 Order on Motion: Adjusting One Year Pendency Due to Joinder 35 USC § 316a11 37 CFR § 42100c

Document IPR2024-00384, No. 37 Order on Motion - Adjusting One Year Pendency Due to Joinder 35 USC § 316a11 37 CFR § 42100c (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2025)
On July 22, 2024, we instituted an inter partes review in each of the above-identified proceedings based on a petition filed by Jeisys Medical Inc. (“Jeisys”).
On January 31, 2025, EndyMed and patent owner, Serendia, LLC, jointly proposed that several due dates be extended by about three months for the purpose of accommodating discovery.
Normally, a final decision in an inter partes review is due “not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices the institution of a review ... except that the Director ... may adjust the time periods in this paragraph in the case of joinder under section 315(c).” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)(emphasis added).
In the case of joinder, the Director has delegated the authority to adjust the one- year period to the Board.
That being the case, we adjust the pendency time of these proceedings before the Board so as to adequately consider and decide all the pending issues.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

36 Order Other: Order Granting Termination Due to Settlement Only as to Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc 35 USC 317 37 CFR 4274

Document IPR2024-00384, No. 36 Order Other - Order Granting Termination Due to Settlement Only as to Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc 35 USC 317 37 CFR 4274 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2025)
On December 18, 2024, we authorized Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. and Patent Owner Serendia, LLC to file a joint motion to terminate “with respect to the petitioner” in each of the above-identified proceedings.
Rather than wait until after our decision on joinder, Jeisys and Serendia chose to file their joint motion beforehand, seeking to terminate each of the above-identified proceedings “in its entirety.” Paper 31, at 1, 3.
But, as a matter of law, an instituted proceeding may be terminated due to settlement only “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Along with their motion to terminate, Jeisys and Serendia also request that their settlement agreement (Exhibit 2156) be treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the files of the challenged patents.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), we determine that it is appropriate to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the files of the challenged patents.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>