This Order addresses a panel change pertaining to the above-referenced proceedings.

The parties are not permitted to use this caption unless authorized by the Board.

The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceedings.

Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Ryan H. Flax replaces Administrative Patent Judge Tina E. Hulse on the panel.

Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Sheridan K. Snedden, Carl M. DeFranco, and Ryan H. Flax now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in these proceedings.

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.

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.

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.

However, as noted above, another entity, Jeisys Medical Inc. (“Jeisys”), filed an earlier petition on which we granted institution of inter partes review.

The ’774 patent is also the subject of a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, filed March 1, 2023, and captioned Certain Dermatological Treatment Devices and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA- 1356 (“the ITC Investigation”).

The ’774 patent is also the subject of several federal district court actions, some of which are stayed pending the outcome of the ITC proceeding and some of which have been dismissed— • Serendia, LLC v. Cutera, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00222 (D.

Serendia also argues that joinder should be denied due to duplicative efforts with the parallel Delaware litigation, which involves the same parties and patent as here.

Thus, we will not discretionarily deny the petition or joinder on the basis of the parallel Delaware litigation.6 Also, to the extent Serendia contends EndyMed should not be permitted to join and continue an IPR that would otherwise be terminated due to Serendia’s settlement with Jeisys, we disagree for several reasons.

Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Cecilia Peniza 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)

On September16, 2024, Patent Owner filed a motion for admission pro hac vice of Cecilia Peniza in each of the above-identified proceedings.

In its notice authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration from the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding.

Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying Declaration, we conclude that Ms. Peniza has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in the above-identified proceedings, that Ms. Peniza has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of these proceedings, that Ms. Peniza meets all other requirements for admission pro hac vice, and that Patent Owner’s intent to be represented by counsel with litigation experience is warranted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Cecilia Peniza in each of the above-identified proceedings is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the above-identified proceedings and that Ms. Peniza is authorized to act as back-up counsel only; FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Peniza comply with the updated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide4 (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Peniza is subject to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901.

2 Serendia also filed a redacted, public version of its preliminary response.

IPR2024-00383 (Patent 9,775,774 B2) IPR2024-00384 (Patent 9,320,536 B2) information at issue is truly confidential, whether harm would result from public disclosure of the information, and whether the interest in maintaining the information’s confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in an open record.

In support, Serendia references a parallel United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceeding between the parties and explains that the protective order “must be entered before service (actual or effective) of Petitioner’s information can take place in this proceeding because the protective order in place in the ITC proceeding does not cover this IPR proceeding.” Id. at 1–2.

IPR2024-00383 (Patent 9,775,774 B2) IPR2024-00384 (Patent 9,320,536 B2) To that end, Serendia represents that “[i]n the related ITC proceeding, in- house counsel is not permitted to view confidential information of the other parties” and “[g]ood cause supports continuing this restriction in this IPR proceeding because the confidential information likely to be filed in this case is information previously produced in the ITC proceeding and relates to company financials and other sensitive business information.” Mot.

Serendia further represents that it and Jeisys “are competitors represented by qualified outside counsel [and] do not significantly benefit in this proceeding from allowing in-house counsel access to such information.” Id. Serendia also certifies that Jeisys “agree[s]” to the proposed restrictions on in-house counsel and the parties, as well as the other proposed changes to the Board’s default protective order.