Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC

Edge Systems LLC, now known as HydraFacial LLC, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC. Edge Systems is an operating company that designs and manufactures patented skin health technologies, having pioneered the hydradermabrasion category with its well-known HydraFacial products. Cartessa Aesthetics is also an operating company, specializing in sourcing and distributing leading aesthetic medical devices, including skin treatment systems, to dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and medical spas across North America. The core of the dispute revolves around Cartessa's "Skinwave" device, which Edge Systems alleges infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 (the "'052 Patent"). The '052 Patent generally describes a console system for skin treatment that incorporates a manifold system to selectively deliver fluids from multiple sources to a handpiece assembly.

The litigation is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, presided over by Judge Gary R. Brown. This venue is one of several district courts that hear a significant number of patent cases, attracting litigants due to factors like local rules, time to resolution, and judicial experience in complex patent matters. The procedural posture of the case saw significant developments when the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment in June 2023. The court ruled in favor of Edge Systems on the validity of the '052 Patent, confirming it was not invalid. However, the court simultaneously granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Cartessa, finding that its Skinwave device did not infringe the '052 Patent. This ruling led to an appeal, with Edge Systems LLC filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 28, 2024.

This case is notable for several reasons within the aesthetic medical device industry, highlighting the competitive landscape around hydradermabrasion technology, which Edge Systems (HydraFacial) is a pioneer in. Beyond the district court litigation, the '052 Patent has also been subject to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2025-01169) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the validity arguments made by Cartessa in the district court were again at issue. Furthermore, HydraFacial has pursued a multi-pronged enforcement strategy, including an additional patent infringement suit against Cartessa in the District of New Jersey (2:22-cv-01742) and an International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint against Cartessa and Eunsung Global Corp., indicating a robust defense of its intellectual property.

Edge Systems LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

• Complaint Filing (2020-12-14): Edge Systems LLC filed its complaint against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC.
• Answer and Counterclaims (Date not explicitly found): Cartessa Aesthetics filed an answer, which included counterclaims of invalidity against the '052 patent.
• Claim Construction (Markman) & Motion to Strike (2021-10-29): The court issued an opinion, Edge Sys. LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, 571 F. Supp. 3d 13 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) ("Edge I"). This opinion resolved claim construction issues following an expedited Markman hearing and denied Cartessa's motion to strike Edge's affirmative defense of unclean hands.
• Summary Judgment on Unclean Hands (June 2022): After a pre-motion conference, the court granted Edge's motion for summary judgment concerning Cartessa's amended affirmative defense of unclean hands.
• Discovery Completion (Prior to June 2023): Discovery in the case was completed before the summary judgment motions regarding infringement and validity were decided.
• Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Filings between June 2022 and June 2023): Edge Systems moved for summary judgment seeking a ruling that Claim 1 of the '052 patent was not invalid. Both parties also filed motions for summary judgment regarding whether Cartessa's "Skinwave" device infringed Claim 1 of the '052 patent. These motions were filed under Docket Entries 88-96.
• Summary Judgment Ruling (2023-06-06): The District Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Document 97) granting Cartessa's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of Claim 1 of the '052 patent. The court found that Edge could not prove that Cartessa's device embodied every limitation of the asserted claim, specifically lacking evidence of a "manifold." The court directed counsel to submit a joint status report within ten days of the decision.
• Appeals to the Federal Circuit (2024-10-28 and 2024-11-19): Edge Systems LLC filed two appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Case No. 0:25-cvpri-01119 was filed on October 28, 2024, and Case No. 0:25-cvpri-01190 was filed on November 19, 2024. These appeals suggest that a final judgment was entered in the District Court following the summary judgment ruling.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (2025-03-11): An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00445, was filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 by Eunsung Global Corp. on March 11, 2025. [cite: 1 from prior search] The petitioner successfully argued that elements alleged to be absent from the prior art were actually disclosed in the patent's cited references, indicating a material error by the examiner. [cite: 1 from prior search] The final outcome of this IPR (e.g., institution, final written decision) is not yet publicly detailed as of May 2026, though a decision on institution would likely have occurred by now.

Plaintiff(s) Edge Systems LLC (later HydraFacial LLC) is represented by the following counsel:

• Steven Tepera (Lead patent counsel)

  • Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Experience: Steven Tepera focuses on patent prosecution and litigation, with a record of efficient victories in federal and state courts across various technologies, including medical goods, and has served as lead patent counsel in this specific matter, Case No. 2:20-CV-06082-GRB-ST (E.D.N.Y.).

• Sean Michael Murray (Counsel)

  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: Irvine, California (based on typical firm structure, needs specific verification for this attorney)
  • Experience: A partner at Knobbe Martens, specializing in intellectual property litigation, with experience in patent infringement cases.

• Karen M. Cassidy (Counsel)

  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (based on typical firm structure, needs specific verification for this attorney)
  • Experience: A partner at Knobbe Martens focusing on intellectual property, including patent litigation and post-grant proceedings.

• Ali S. Razai (Counsel)

  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: San Diego, California (based on typical firm structure, needs specific verification for this attorney)
  • Experience: An attorney at Knobbe Martens with experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, and has appeared in related cases for HydraFacial LLC.

• Ashley C. Morales (Counsel)

  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: San Diego, California (based on typical firm structure, needs specific verification for this attorney)
  • Experience: An attorney at Knobbe Martens with a practice focused on intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Craig Steven Summers (Counsel)

  • Firm: Knobbe Martens
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California (based on typical firm structure, needs specific verification for this attorney)
  • Experience: An attorney at Knobbe Martens focusing on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement.

The initial docket entries from December 2020 list the Knobbe Martens attorneys. More recent information (as of September 2024) indicates Steven Tepera of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP as lead patent counsel for Edge Systems LLC in this specific case. While a recent PacerMonitor entry (March 2025) for a related case (2:24-cv-04253) shows Ali S. Razai of Knobbe Martens, his specific role in the main 2:20-cv-06082 case at the current date is not explicitly stated as lead counsel. Given Tepera's listing as "Lead patent counsel" for 2:20-cv-06082, he is specifically identified as holding that role. The specific roles for the other attorneys (of counsel, local counsel, in-house) are not explicitly detailed in the public records found, beyond general "counsel," but they are likely involved as part of the litigation team. Office locations are inferred based on general firm presence and common practice for patent litigation teams, requiring direct firm website verification for absolute certainty for each individual attorney if more granularity is needed.

Here is the counsel of record representing Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC in Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC:

1. Steven P. Tepera

• Role: Lead Patent Counsel
• Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Austin, TX
• Experience: Focuses on patent prosecution and litigation, with experience as lead patent counsel in numerous intellectual property disputes across various technologies, including medical goods.

2. David G. Keyko

• Role: Attorney for Defendant
• Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York, NY
• Experience: While the specific search results did not detail his patent litigation experience directly within this context, Pillsbury's intellectual property practice generally involves patent, trademark, and copyright litigation. To be precise, I lack a one-line note for his specific patent litigation experience.

3. Aya Hatori

• Role: Attorney for Defendant
• Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Austin, TX
• Experience: The provided search results did not yield specific information about Aya Hatori's patent litigation experience or notable past cases. To be precise, I lack a one-line note for her specific patent litigation experience.