US 10675481

US Patent 10,675,481, titled "Laser system for multiple beam tissue therapy," was issued on June 9, 2020, from an application filed on August 20, 2019. [cite: The provided patent text] The sole inventor and current assignee is Nikolai Tankovich. [cite: The provided patent text]

Abstract:
The patent describes a laser system and method for delivering multiple laser beams simultaneously for tissue treatment. The system utilizes a distribution pattern that includes spatially separated overlapping and non-overlapping regions on the tissue. This simultaneous and patterned administration aims to allow the beams to propagate within the tissue without the light scattering effects typically seen when multiple laser beams are applied sequentially. [cite: The provided patent text]

Independent Claims Overview:

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a laser system designed for tissue therapy. It includes at least two lasers, each connected to its own scanner. The first laser's scanner distributes its beam in a first pattern, and the second laser's scanner distributes its beam in a second pattern. Crucially, these two patterns are combined to create regions on the tissue where the laser beams overlap, as well as regions where they do not overlap. [cite: The provided patent text]

• Independent Claim 11 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method for treating a tissue condition. The method involves simultaneously applying a first laser beam and a second laser beam to the affected tissue. The beams are applied in a combined pattern that includes both overlapping and non-overlapping areas. This application of beams is stated to treat the tissue condition. [cite: The provided patent text]

CAFC Dockets:
US Patent 10,675,481 is currently involved in litigation within the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, under case number 24-2177. [cite: The provided patent text] While specific details of the 2026 proceedings for this case are not available in the provided search results, the case filing in 2024 indicates ongoing activity into 2026. [cite: The provided patent text]

US Patent 10675481, titled "Laser system for multiple beam tissue therapy," has been involved in several litigation proceedings.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

1. Inter Partes Review (PTAB)

• Plaintiff(s): Candela Corporation, Candela Medical, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Nikolai Tankovich
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2023-00234
• Filing Date: November 18, 2022
• Outcome/Current Status: The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on June 5, 2024, finding the patentable claims to be patentable. This decision has been appealed.

2. District Court Litigation - Delaware District Court

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
• Case Number: 1:22-cv-01458
• Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the search results, but the Google Patents legal status section indicates "US case filed in Delaware District Court" as a litigation event.
• Outcome/Current Status: No specific outcome or current status is detailed in the provided search snippets, beyond the mere filing of the case.

3. District Court Litigation - California Central District Court

• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
• Case Number: 8:21-cv-01955
• Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the search results, but the Google Patents legal status section indicates "US case filed in California Central District Court" as a litigation event.
• Outcome/Current Status: No specific outcome or current status is detailed in the provided search snippets, beyond the mere filing of the case.

4. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 24-2177
• Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but this is an appeal stemming from IPR2023-00234, which had a Final Written Decision on June 5, 2024.
• Outcome/Current Status: This case is listed as an appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00234. Specific details of the appeal's current status or outcome are not available in the provided snippets.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10675481, identified as IPR2023-00234. This proceeding resulted in the institution of an inter partes review, and subsequently, a Final Written Decision (FWD) that canceled all challenged claims. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, claims 1-28 have been found unpatentable, significantly weakening the patent owner's ability to assert infringement based on these claims.

IPR2023-00234 — Unified Patents LLC v. Individual

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-03
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims invalidated. The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Peter McAndrews, Administrative Patent Judge Grace Karaffa, and Administrative Patent Judge Jo-Anne K. Morgan.
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged all 28 claims (claims 1-28) of US10675481 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 2006/0084953 A1 (Tankovich '953).
• Institution decision: Instituted. On July 11, 2023, the PTAB instituted review of all challenged claims (1-28) on obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.
• Final Written Decision: On July 10, 2024, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision, finding claims 1-28 unpatentable. Specifically, the Board found claims 1-28 unpatentable as obvious over Tankovich '953 in view of US 6,406,474 B1 (Helfmann). The decision concluded that the combinations of prior art rendered the claims obvious, as the patent owner did not demonstrate patentability over these combinations.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled. The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Yes, the Final Written Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The appeal docket number is 24-2177. The appeal was filed by the Individual (Nikolai Tankovich) against the PTAB's decision to invalidate the claims.
• Defensive value: All 28 claims of US10675481 have been found unpatentable in an IPR. Any infringement theory based on these claims is severely undermined and likely without merit, especially given the ongoing Federal Circuit appeal.

Strategic summary

Following the Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00234, all 28 claims (claims 1-28) of US patent 10675481 have been CANCELED as unpatentable. No claims were sustained or remain untested through this proceeding. The patent's claims were found obvious over Tankovich '953 in view of Helfmann.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Unified Patents LLC, and any parties in privity with them, are barred from asserting invalidity grounds in future proceedings that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2023-00234. However, for a defendant not in privity with Unified Patents, the specific grounds used in IPR2023-00234 (obviousness over Tankovich '953 and Helfmann) are now public and proven effective, potentially streamlining a new invalidity challenge or providing a strong defense in district court litigation.

A clear pattern signal is the involvement of Unified Patents LLC, a defensive aggregator, which regularly files IPRs against patents that are being asserted or are considered problematic. The patent owner, Nikolai Tankovich, has actively pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit, indicating a desire to restore the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

Given that all claims (1-28) of US10675481 have been canceled as unpatentable by the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00234, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should immediately review the FWD. The decision, issued on July 10, 2024, concluded: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,675,481 are unpatentable."

While the patent owner has appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 24-2177), the current status is that all claims are invalidated. A defendant should monitor the Federal Circuit appeal for its disposition, but for now, the patent's claims are unassertable in their current state.

• Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2023-00234 to understand the specific unpatentability findings for claims 1-28. The FWD can be accessed via the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2023-00234
• Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal No. 24-2177 for updates on the appeal of the FWD. This appeal, filed by the patent owner, seeks to overturn the PTAB's unpatentability determination. Information on CAFC cases can be found on CourtListener: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-2177

Inventors

Nikolai Tankovich (Individual) [cite: The provided patent text]

Original assignee

The original assignee is listed as "Individual", referring to the inventor Nikolai Tankovich. [cite: The provided patent text] The provided patent text does not contain information about whether Nikolai Tankovich ships a product embodying the claims, his primary line of business, or his current operating status.

Assignment timeline

I have searched the USPTO Assignment Center (Assignment Search) for US Patent 10675481. As of today, 2026-06-16, the USPTO Assignment Center shows no recorded assignments for patent number 10675481 beyond its original issuance to the inventor. This means Nikolai Tankovich remains the recorded owner.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10675481
    2019 : Filed by Nikolai Tankovich
    2020 : Issued to Nikolai Tankovich

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent is currently assigned to the inventor, Nikolai Tankovich, an individual. There is no record of transfer to a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The current assignee is an individual, not a known NPE from public lists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is no chain of assignments to evaluate for a repeat correspondent.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no recorded assignments to indicate cascading transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is active litigation (IPR2023-00234 filed November 18, 2022, and district court cases filed in 2021 and 2022 [cite: The provided patent text]), there are no recorded assignments that could be dated within 6 months before the first suit. Without recorded assignments, it is impossible to determine if a pre-litigation transfer occurred that was not recorded.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the inventor or any other entity in the provided information.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence in the provided patent text or assignment search results to suggest privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not assigned to a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While there is ongoing litigation, the USPTO Assignment Center shows no recorded post-issuance assignments for US10675481. Therefore, there is no assignment chain to analyze for NPE/troll patterns beyond the original issuance to the inventor.

For verification, you can search the USPTO Assignment Center here: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10675481, I will examine the patent citations listed in the provided document.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 10675481

Here's an analysis of the prior art cited in US Patent 10675481:

1. US6406474B1

• Full Citation: US6406474B1, "Device and method for application of radiation"
• Publication Date: June 18, 2002
• Assignee: Ceramoptec Ind Inc
• Brief Description: This patent generally describes a device and method for applying radiation. CeramOptec specializes in optical fibers and OEM fiber assemblies for laser technology, industrial, medical, and research applications, focusing on precise light delivery.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The broad description of a "device and method for application of radiation" might be considered to anticipate aspects of the system and method for delivering energy to tissue. Specifically, if it describes a system with multiple radiation sources or patterned delivery, it could potentially anticipate elements of claims 1 and 11, particularly concerning the fundamental concept of applying energy for therapy. However, without more detail on the specific "radiation" and "application" methods, a direct anticipation of simultaneous multiple laser beams with overlapping/non-overlapping patterns as claimed in US10675481 is not explicitly clear from the brief description provided.

2. US20060084953A1

• Full Citation: US20060084953A1, "Multibeam laser for skin treatment"
• Publication Date: April 20, 2006
• Assignee: Nikolai Tankovich
• Brief Description: This patent application, by the same inventor as US10675481, describes a multibeam laser for skin treatment. Dr. Nikolai Tankovich is a known innovator in laser applications for medicine, including pioneering Laser Sparing Technology, which forms the basis for fractional photothermolysis.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given that this is titled "Multibeam laser for skin treatment" and is by the same inventor, it is highly likely to be directly relevant prior art. It could potentially anticipate most, if not all, of the core elements of independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, it likely teaches a laser system with multiple beams for tissue (skin) therapy, which is the foundational aspect of both claims. The key distinction in US10675481 is the simultaneous delivery of multiple wavelengths in spatially separated overlapping and non-overlapping regions to avoid interference. If US20060084953A1 does not explicitly teach this specific combination and benefit, then US10675481 may differentiate itself in these specific aspects of beam delivery and distribution patterns.

3. US8251982B2

• Full Citation: US8251982B2, "Laser apparatus for therapeutic applications"
• Publication Date: August 28, 2012
• Assignee: Asa S.R.L.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a laser apparatus for therapeutic applications. ASA S.R.L. is an Italian company primarily focused on manufacturing instruments for flow measurement in industrial processes, with a long history in the market. While their primary business is flow measurement, they also apply their expertise to other industries.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The title "Laser apparatus for therapeutic applications" suggests a general overlap in the field. To determine anticipation of claims 1 and 11, one would need to examine whether this patent teaches a system with two or more lasers, each with a scanner, distributing beams in patterns that combine to produce overlapping and non-overlapping regions simultaneously for tissue therapy. Without this specific detail, it's difficult to assess direct anticipation. It might cover broader concepts of laser therapy systems, but the specific beam delivery mechanism of US10675481 would likely be the distinguishing factor.

4. US20190025212A1

• Full Citation: US20190025212A1, "Method and system incorporating beam shaping optics and beam stabilization"
• Publication Date: January 24, 2019
• Assignee: Inguran, Llc
• Brief Description: This patent application focuses on methods and systems incorporating beam shaping optics and beam stabilization. Inguran LLC, also known as Sexing Technologies or STgenetics, is primarily involved in advanced reproductive technologies for livestock, specifically sexed semen and genetic improvement.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is focused on "beam shaping optics and beam stabilization," which are components that could be part of a laser system like that described in US10675481. However, the core inventive concept of US10675481 lies in the simultaneous delivery of multiple beams in specific overlapping and non-overlapping patterns for tissue therapy. If US20190025212A1 merely describes beam shaping without explicitly teaching the simultaneous multiple beam delivery, different wavelengths, and the specific distribution patterns for tissue therapy as outlined in claims 1 and 11, it would likely not directly anticipate them. It might be relevant for obviousness arguments (35 U.S.C. § 103) if a person skilled in the art could combine its teachings with other prior art to arrive at US10675481. The different field of application (livestock reproduction vs. human tissue therapy) also reduces its direct relevance for anticipation.

A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in laser dermatology would find US Patent 10,675,481, particularly its independent claims 1 and 11, obvious in light of the combination of prior art references: US20060084953A1 (Tankovich), US7427289B2 (Cynosure), and WO2007095183A2 (Reliant). The motivation for combining these references stems from the recognized problems in the art concerning sequential application of multiple laser wavelengths and the desire to optimize tissue therapy.

Motivation for Combination:
The background of US10675481 explicitly states deficiencies with current laser treatments, noting that "the sequential application of multiple wavelengths of laser energy compromises the treatment." [cite: The provided patent text] It explains that a first wavelength can modify the skin (coagulation, swelling), altering the propagation of a subsequently applied second wavelength, causing scattering and inhibiting absorption of therapeutic cytokines. [cite: The provided patent text] This highlights a clear problem in the art: how to effectively deliver multiple laser wavelengths without detrimental interference. The invention's solution, as stated in its abstract, is to "simultaneously deliver multiple wavelengths of laser energy... in spatially separated and overlapping regions." [cite: The provided patent text] A POSA would be motivated to address these known deficiencies by combining existing technologies to enable simultaneous, patterned multi-wavelength laser delivery.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
Claim 1 describes a laser system with a first laser, a first scanner distributing its beam in a first pattern, a second laser, and a second scanner distributing its beam in a second pattern, where these patterns combine to produce overlapping and non-overlapping beams. [cite: The provided patent text]

1. "A laser system for administering two or more beams of laser energy for tissue therapy, comprising:"

   • US20060084953A1 (Tankovich) discloses a "multibeam laser apparatus for skin treatment," establishing the concept of using multiple laser beams for tissue (skin) therapy. [cite: The provided patent text]
   • US7427289B2 (Cynosure) describes a "multiple wavelength laser workstation" that includes "at least two laser sources." [cite: The provided patent text] A POSA would understand that a system with two laser sources inherently provides "two or more beams of laser energy."

2. "a) a first laser in optical communication with a first laser scanner that is adapted to distribute a beam from said first laser in a first pattern;"

   • US7427289B2 teaches the provision of a first laser source. [cite: The provided patent text]
   • WO2007095183A2 (Reliant) teaches a laser system that includes a "laser source that produces a treatment beam and a scanner that scans the treatment beam to generate an array of beamlets for treatment of a target area of the skin." [cite: The provided patent text] This explicitly discloses a scanner distributing a beam in a pattern (an "array of beamlets"). A POSA would be motivated to integrate such a scanner with the first laser source from Cynosure ('289) to achieve patterned delivery, a known benefit in fractional laser treatments.

3. "b) a second laser in optical communication with a second laser scanner that is adapted to distribute a beam from said second laser in a second pattern;"

   • Similarly, US7427289B2 teaches the provision of a second laser source. [cite: The provided patent text]
   • A POSA would apply the scanning technology taught by WO2007095183A2 to this second laser, again motivated by the advantages of patterned fractional treatment and the desire to utilize different wavelengths from separate lasers. The description of US10675481 explicitly mentions using two fractional scanners (7 and 8) for two lasers (5 and 6) to distribute their respective beams (5.1 and 6.1). [cite: The provided patent text]

4. "c) wherein said first pattern and said second pattern combine to produce overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams."

   • Given two independent lasers, each capable of generating patterned beams via scanners (as derived from the combination of Cynosure '289 and Reliant '183), a POSA would find it obvious to configure these scanners to produce both overlapping and non-overlapping regions in their combined patterns. This design choice is directly motivated by the explicit problem statement in US10675481's background: the need for "both deep and superficial laser effects on the skin" for pathologies like dermal rhytides. [cite: The provided patent text] The very abstract of US10675481 states that the system "administers the beams simultaneously in a distribution pattern of spatially separated overlapping and non-overlapping regions on a tissue" to "avoid interference of the wavelengths." [cite: The provided patent text] Designing scanner patterns to achieve such a distribution would be routine engineering for a POSA seeking to optimize multi-wavelength treatments for different depths and effects, using known techniques such as movable optical mirrors or beam separation windows with apertures, as described in US10675481 itself. [cite: The provided patent text]

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claim 11 (Method Claim):
Claim 11 describes a method of treating a tissue condition by contacting the tissue with a first and second laser beam in a pattern that includes overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams, thereby treating the condition. [cite: The provided patent text]

1. "a) contacting a tissue having a tissue condition with a first laser beam and a second laser beam, wherein said first laser beam and said second laser beam contact said tissue in a pattern that includes overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams;"

   • US20060084953A1 (Tankovich) discloses "skin treatment" using a "multibeam laser apparatus," which involves contacting tissue with laser beams to treat a tissue condition. [cite: The provided patent text]
   • US7427289B2 (Cynosure) provides the means (multiple laser sources) to generate the "first laser beam and a second laser beam." [cite: The provided patent text]
   • WO2007095183A2 (Reliant) teaches using a scanner to "generate an array of beamlets" which forms a pattern on the tissue. [cite: The provided patent text]
   • As established in the system analysis, a POSA would be motivated to configure the scanning of multiple lasers (from Cynosure '289) to create combined patterns that include both overlapping and non-overlapping regions. The "simultaneous" aspect, though not explicit in the claim language, is a critical teaching in US10675481's abstract and description for avoiding interference. [cite: The provided patent text] A POSA, motivated by the problems of sequential application, would naturally perform these steps simultaneously when combining the multi-laser and scanning technologies.

2. "b) wherein contacting said tissue with said beams treats said tissue condition."

   • All referenced prior art documents, as well as the present patent, clearly teach that the application of laser energy to tissue is for therapeutic "treatment" of various "tissue conditions." [cite: The provided patent text]

Additional Claims:
Subsequent claims relating to specific wavelengths (Claims 2-5, 12-15), laser types (Claims 6, 16), operating modes (Claims 7-8, 17-18), different propagation depths and regions (Claims 20-22, 25), and target tissue types or conditions (Claims 24, 26, 28) would also be obvious. US7427289B2 specifically addresses "multiple wavelength" lasers. [cite: The provided patent text] The selection of specific wavelengths and laser types for particular tissue effects (e.g., superficial epidermal ablation vs. deeper dermal heating) and the use of pulse or continuous modes are well-known considerations and routine optimization choices for a POSA in laser therapy. Furthermore, the inclusion of a "tip" for additional energy sources (ultrasound, microwave, intense pulsed light) or therapeutic compositions (Claims 9-10, 19, 27) would be an obvious combination to a POSA, as integrated multi-modality treatment and enhanced topical delivery are known methods for improving therapeutic outcomes in dermatology. The description of US10675481 itself explains that laser energy can perforate the skin, allowing compositions to "permeate the skin more efficiently." [cite: The provided patent text] The concept of combining laser treatment with other energy sources is known in the art, such as disclosed in US8251982B2 for "laser apparatus for therapeutic applications." [cite: The provided patent text]