Certain Hydrodermabrasion Systems and Components Thereof II

Case Overview and Background: Certain Hydrodermabrasion Systems and Components Thereof II

This litigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC), designated as Investigation No. 337-TA-1416, involved allegations of patent infringement related to hydrodermabrasion systems. The complainant, HydraFacial LLC (formerly Edge Systems LLC) of Long Beach, California, is an operating company specializing in professional skin care devices and treatments. HydraFacial initiated the investigation, alleging that various respondents were importing and selling infringing hydrodermabrasion systems and their components into the United States. The named respondents included Sinclair Pharma U.S. Inc., Sinclair Pharma Limited, Huadong Medicine Co., Ltd., EMA Aesthetics, Ltd., Aesthetics Management Partners, Advanced Aesthetics Services LLC, and H.R. Meditech. The accused products are broadly described as "systems and subassemblies for skin treatment through mechanical and/or fluid-based abrasion or exfoliation".

The complaint specifically asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 and U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287. U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 generally describes an apparatus for treating skin, featuring a console with a user input, a handpiece assembly for skin treatment, a fluid line connecting the two, and a manifold system for releasably holding fluid sources and delivering fluid to the handpiece. The technical sketch for U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, while also related to hydrodermabrasion systems, is not fully detailed in the provided search results but is generally understood to cover advancements in these skin treatment systems.

The case was filed on September 10, 2024, at the International Trade Commission, an administrative agency known for its expedited litigation timeline and the powerful remedy of exclusion orders against infringing imported goods. Litigating at the ITC is often strategic for complainants seeking to halt the importation of allegedly infringing products into the U.S. market quickly, as opposed to monetary damages typically sought in district court. The procedural posture of 337-TA-1416 saw an early termination without prejudice on March 20, 2025, based on the complainant's unopposed motion to withdraw the complaint. This early withdrawal, often indicating a settlement or a strategic decision by the complainant, meant the merits of the infringement allegations were not fully adjudicated. While the case terminated early, the assertion by HydraFacial, an operating company in the aesthetic device industry, highlights the importance of intellectual property protection for market share in this sector. There is no indication from the provided search results of any notable IPR linkages that impacted the early termination.

The ITC investigation 337-TA-1416, captioned "Certain Hydrodermabrasion Systems and Components Thereof II," involved U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 and was terminated without prejudice based on the Complainant's withdrawal of the complaint.

Here is a chronological list of key legal developments and the outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-08-06: HydraFacial LLC f/k/a Edge Systems LLC ("Complainant") of Long Beach, California, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
• 2024-08-16: The Complainant filed a supplement to the complaint.
• 2024-09-10: The ITC instituted the investigation, 337-TA-1416, based on the complaint. The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 based on the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain hydrodermabrasion systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1-12, 14-20, 22-26, 28-37, and 39-45 of U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052.
• Respondents: The Commission's notice regarding termination mentioned that respondents H.R. Meditech and Advanced Aesthetics Services LLC did not appear in the investigation. Specific details on other potential respondents or formal answers/counterclaims are not readily available in the public records for this quickly terminated investigation.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-02-18: Complainant HydraFacial filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation based on the withdrawal of its complaint.
• 2025-02-19: The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Determination (ID) (Order No. 15) granting the Complainant's motion to terminate the investigation without prejudice. The ID found good cause for the termination and noted that no party opposed the motion.
• No petitions for review of the ALJ's ID were filed by any party.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The investigation was terminated at an early stage, approximately five months after institution, and did not reach the claim construction (Markman) phase.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Due to the rapid termination of the investigation, there were no reported significant discovery milestones.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The investigation was terminated before reaching the evidentiary hearing (trial) stage.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2025-03-11: The Commission determined not to review the ALJ's Initial Determination (Order No. 15) granting the Complainant's motion to terminate the investigation without prejudice.
• 2025-03-18: Notice of the Commission's determination was published in the Federal Register.
• 2025-03-20: The investigation was officially terminated without prejudice.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2025-03-11: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00445, was filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by Eunsung Global Corp. The effective date for this IPR is listed as January 10, 2025.
• This IPR was filed on the same day the ITC Commission voted not to review the termination of investigation 337-TA-1416. Therefore, while a challenge to the patent was initiated at the PTAB, it did not directly impact the early termination of the ITC investigation.

HydraFacial LLC f/k/a Edge Systems LLC of Long Beach, California was the Complainant in this ITC investigation. The case was terminated without prejudice after HydraFacial LLC withdrew its complaint on February 18, 2025.

While the publicly available summaries and notices of institution for ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1416 identify the complainant, they do not explicitly list the counsel of record in the same manner as a federal court docket. To definitively identify the specific attorneys who appeared for HydraFacial LLC, access to the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) of the ITC would typically be required to review the complaint and notices of appearance. Without direct access to these specific EDIS filings, the individual attorneys and their roles cannot be stated with certainty. However, general practice in Section 337 investigations often involves specialized ITC litigation firms.

The search results indicate that Foster, Murphy, Altman, & Nickel, PC represented a respondent, Aesthetics Management Partners, in this investigation and obtained an early withdrawal of the complaint against them. This suggests that HydraFacial LLC would have been represented by counsel from a different firm. Without direct access to the complaint or notices of appearance in EDIS, specific attorney names, roles, and their respective firms for HydraFacial LLC cannot be provided.

In ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1416, "Certain Hydrodermabrasion Systems and Components Thereof II," several law firms represented the various respondents. The case was terminated without prejudice based on the complainant's withdrawal, meaning extensive litigation details for all counsel may not be readily available in public records.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel for the respondents:

For Sinclair Pharma U.S. Inc., Sinclair Pharma Limited, EMA Aesthetics, Ltd., and Aesthetics Management Partners:

• Foley & Lardner LLP represented Sinclair Pharma U.S. Inc. While specific attorneys from Foley & Lardner LLP are not named in the immediate ITC participant representative lists, the firm is known for its intellectual property litigation practice.
• Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks represented Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC, and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. in a related IPR proceeding (IPR2025-00145), and it is highly probable they also served as counsel in the ITC investigation.
  • Meaghan P. Luster (Attorney)
  • Michael N. Rader (Attorney)
  • Scott McKeown (Attorney)
  • Roberto Fernandez (Attorney)
  • Note on experience: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks has extensive experience in patent litigation. Scott McKeown is also listed as an attorney for the Petitioner (Sinclair Pharma Ltd. et al.) in a related IPR.

For Aesthetics Management Partners:

• Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz also represented Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. in a related district court case.
  • Nicole Berkowitz Riccio (Attorney)
  • Note on experience: This firm has attorneys experienced in intellectual property matters.
• Wyatt Tarrant & Combs also represented Aesthetic Management Partners in a related district court case.
  • Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (Attorney)
  • Emma Mansberg Weintraub (Attorney)

For Huadong Medicine Co., Ltd.:

Specific counsel for Huadong Medicine Co., Ltd. in the ITC investigation 337-TA-1416 is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results. However, Huadong Medicine Co., Ltd. is a large pharmaceutical company with experience in patent litigation in other contexts.

For H.R. Meditech and Advanced Aesthetics Services LLC:

The respondents H.R. Meditech and Advanced Aesthetics Services LLC did not appear in this investigation and did not participate in the Respondents' Opposition to a motion. Therefore, no counsel of record is identified for these entities in relation to this specific ITC investigation. Advanced Aesthetics Services LLC is an assignee of several patents related to aesthetic technologies.