Untitled case

HydraFacial LLC, an operating company specializing in aesthetic and medical-grade skin care devices and products, filed this patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (Case No. 2:24-cv-00587). The plaintiff, HydraFacial, alleges that defendants Luvo Medical Technologies Inc, Healthcare Markets, Inc, and their foreign manufacturer Eunsung, infringe its patents through the sale of their hydrodermabrasion systems, specifically naming the Bela MD System and its associated treatment tips as the accused products. The asserted patents, including US Patent 11446477, are among at least five of HydraFacial's patents related to skin treatment devices and methods for treating skin. While a specific one-line technical sketch for patent 11446477 wasn't explicitly detailed in the search results, it broadly concerns devices and methods for treating skin within the context of hydrodermabrasion.

The case, assigned to Judge Tena Campbell, was initially filed on August 16, 2024. It experienced an early stay due to a parallel ITC Luvo Matter. Following a settlement agreement in the ITC matter, a consent judgment was filed, terminating the case against Luvo Medical Technologies and Healthcare Markets. However, HydraFacial intends to reopen the case to pursue monetary damages specifically against Eunsung. The procedural history also notes a mediation attempt in March 2025 that did not result in a settlement, and an amended complaint was filed in May 2025.

This litigation appears to be part of a broader enforcement strategy by HydraFacial, as SEC filings indicate similar patent infringement complaints filed against other entities concerning hydrodermabrasion systems in various district courts. The Utah venue is the district where this particular action against Luvo Medical Technologies, Healthcare Markets, Inc., and Eunsung was initiated. The notability of the case stems from HydraFacial's proactive approach in protecting its intellectual property in the competitive aesthetic device market, evidenced by multiple concurrent litigations and an ITC investigation, highlighting the industry's focus on hydrodermabrasion technology. The ongoing pursuit of damages against the foreign manufacturer Eunsung, even after settlement with the distributors, further underscores the plaintiff's vigorous enforcement strategy.

The patent infringement litigation, HydraFacial LLC v. Luvo Medical Technologies et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00587, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477 among others. The case has reached a final disposition through a series of settlements and a consent judgment.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

• 2024-08-07: ITC Complaint Filed. HydraFacial LLC filed a complaint against Luvo Medical Technologies Inc., Healthcare Markets, Inc., Medical Purchasing Resource, eMIRAmed, and MIRAmedtech at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
• 2024-08-16: District Court Complaint Filed. HydraFacial LLC filed the patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against Luvo Medical Technologies Inc., Healthcare Markets, Inc., and their foreign manufacturer Eunsung Global Corp. The complaint alleged infringement of five of HydraFacial's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477.
• 2024-09-16: ITC Investigation Instituted. The ITC initiated an investigation, assigned number 337-TA-1417, in response to HydraFacial's complaint.
• Undated (after 2024-08-16): Case Stayed. The district court case (2:24-cv-00587) was stayed pending the conclusion of the corresponding ITC Luvo Matter.
• 2025-01-14: IPR2025-00453 Filed. Eunsung Global Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00453, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• 2025-03-17: Settlement with Luvo and Healthcare Markets. HydraFacial LLC signed a settlement agreement with Luvo Medical Technologies Inc. and Healthcare Markets, Inc. This settlement led to the termination of the ITC investigation as to these two parties.
• Undated (after 2025-03-17): Consent Judgment Against Luvo and Healthcare Markets. Pursuant to the ITC settlement agreement, the parties filed a consent judgment in the district court case, terminating the case as to Luvo Medical Technologies Inc. and Healthcare Markets, Inc.
• 2025-07-31: IPR2025-00453 Settled. The IPR proceeding IPR2025-00453, challenging patent 11,446,477, reached a "Settlement" status at the PTAB. This likely coincided with the settlement in the district court case involving Eunsung.
• 2025-07-XX: Settlement with Eunsung Global. HydraFacial LLC achieved a settlement with the remaining defendant, Eunsung Global Corp.
• 2025-08-08: Final Consent Judgment and Case Closure. A Final Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction was entered against Eunsung Global Corp., formally closing the district court case. A joint motion for entry of consent judgment and permanent injunction had been filed by HydraFacial LLC.
• 2026-01-16: IPR2025-01217 Instituted. Aesthetic Management Partners Inc. filed IPR2025-01217, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477. The PTAB instituted trial on this IPR.
• 2026-05-13: PTAB Document Filed. A "PO Brief in Response to Sua Sponte Director Review" was filed in IPR2025-01217 for the '477 patent, indicating ongoing activity and review at the PTAB regarding the institution decision.

The district court litigation was fully resolved through settlements and a final consent judgment leading to a permanent injunction against Eunsung Global. While the district court case is closed, U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477 continues to be challenged in an ongoing IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01217) at the PTAB. No information regarding motions to dismiss (other than the stay), claim construction, or extensive discovery milestones was found beyond the initial stay and subsequent settlements. No parallel Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings for 11,446,477 were identified.

HydraFacial LLC is represented by a team of attorneys, primarily from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, with local counsel from Utah.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for HydraFacial LLC:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

• Ali S. Razai (Lead Counsel): Partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, known for his patent litigation experience. He was also involved in another HydraFacial patent infringement victory in the Central District of California.
  • Office Location: Likely a key IP hub for the firm, though not specified for this particular case.
• Benjamin J. Everton (Lead Counsel): Partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, also involved in the Central District of California case for HydraFacial. He filed a motion for admission pro hac vice in this case.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.
• Christian D. Boettcher (Lead Counsel): Associated with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and listed as counsel in the Central District of California case.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.
• Alexander B. Stein (Counsel): Listed as a patent owner attorney for HydraFacial LLC in a related PTAB IPR proceeding involving Eunsung Global Corp..
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.
• Jacob L. Peterson (Counsel): Also listed as a patent owner attorney for HydraFacial LLC in a related PTAB IPR proceeding involving Eunsung Global Corp..
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.
• Benjamin B. Anger (Counsel): Also listed as a patent owner attorney for HydraFacial LLC in a related PTAB IPR proceeding involving Eunsung Global Corp..
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results for this case.

Local Counsel

• D. Craig Parry (Local Counsel): Attorney added to party HydraFacial LLC.
  • Firm and Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but as local counsel in Utah, presumably a Utah-based firm.
• Chad Pehrson (Local Counsel): Filed the initial complaint on behalf of HydraFacial LLC.
  • Firm and Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but as local counsel in Utah, presumably a Utah-based firm.

It's important to note that while some attorneys' specific roles (e.g., lead counsel) are inferred from their repeated appearance in significant filings and related cases, the precise delineation of "lead" versus "of counsel" or "in-house" is not always explicitly detailed in public docket entries. The involvement of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, a firm with a recognized national patent litigation practice, suggests they are leading the strategic aspects of the case.

The defendant Eunsung Global Corp. in HydraFacial LLC v. Luvo Medical Technologies Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00587) is represented by a team of attorneys.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for Eunsung, along with available details:

• Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case, but often associated with patent litigation)
  • Note: Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr. is listed as counsel for Eunsung Global in this case.

• Adam M. Pace

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case)
  • Note: Adam M. Pace is listed as counsel for Eunsung Global.

• Lauren A. Degnan

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case)
  • Note: Lauren A. Degnan is listed as counsel for Eunsung Global.

• Sun Young Park

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case)
  • Note: Sun Young Park is listed as counsel for Eunsung Global.

• Linhong Zhang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case)
  • Note: Linhong Zhang is listed as counsel for Eunsung Global.

• Brent O. Hatch

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Hatch Law Group P.C. (Based on common local counsel practices in Utah District Court, likely local counsel for Eunsung, though not explicitly stated as "local counsel" in the search results).
  • Note: Brent O. Hatch is listed as counsel for Eunsung Global. He also appeared as attorney for the defendant during a discovery dispute conference in August 2025.

It is worth noting that in related PTAB IPR proceedings initiated by Eunsung Global Corp. against HydraFacial LLC (e.g., IPR2025-00445 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 and IPR2024-01491 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287), Eunsung Global has been represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson, including Jeremy J. Monaldo, Jay Zhu, Eric Simon, Sangki Park, and Dianna Bradley. While these attorneys are listed for PTAB actions, their appearance in the district court case against HydraFacial is not confirmed by the provided results.