HydraFacial LLC v. Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al.

This case involves HydraFacial LLC, a prominent company in the beauty health sector known for its patented hydradermabrasion technology and skin treatment systems, suing Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC (AMP) and Aesthetic Management Partners Inc. for patent infringement. HydraFacial, operating under its parent entity, The Beauty Health Company (NASDAQ: SKIN), specializes in devices and related consumable products that cleanse, extract, and hydrate skin through a non-invasive, three-step treatment called HydraFacial. Defendants Aesthetic Management Partners (AMP) are also active in the medical aesthetics market, providing biotherapies, energy-based devices, and practice support services for skin and hair treatments. The lawsuit alleges that AMP's hydrodermabrasion systems, specifically their AQUAFIRME™ product, infringe HydraFacial's patents.

The asserted patent explicitly mentioned is U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052, titled "Console system for the treatment of skin." This patent describes an apparatus for treating skin that includes a console with a user input, a handpiece assembly to treat the skin, a fluid line connecting them, and a manifold system capable of holding multiple fluid sources and delivering fluid to the handpiece. Other related patents, 11,446,477 and 11,865,287, are also involved in parallel proceedings, covering operational methods or device configurations and evolved system features, respectively.

The case, 2:24-cv-02480, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, with Judge Jon Phipps McCalla presiding. The procedural posture of the case indicates active discovery and settlement discussions, following the lifting of a statutory stay on April 18, 2025. This stay was initially implemented due to a related investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), identified as 337-TA-1416 (the "ITC Sinclair Matter"), where HydraFacial also asserted infringement of the '052 and '287 patents against Aesthetic Management Partners and others. HydraFacial moved for a preliminary injunction in June 2025, and a four-hour evidentiary hearing on this motion, with expert testimony, was held on July 25, 2025, with a ruling pending as of September 2025. The case is notable for HydraFacial's aggressive enforcement of its intellectual property in the competitive medical aesthetics device sector, evidenced by parallel district court and ITC actions against multiple competitors regarding hydradermabrasion systems. The ongoing litigation and the preliminary injunction motion highlight the market competition and the importance of patented technology in this growing industry.

The patent infringement litigation HydraFacial LLC v. Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02480, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, involves U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052, along with several other patents. The case has experienced an initial stay, followed by its lifting, and is currently in the active discovery phase with pending substantive motions.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• Complaint Filing (2024-07-08): HydraFacial LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC and Aesthetic Management Partners Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). HydraFacial asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,550,052, 11,446,477, 11,865,287, 10,357,641, and 10,357,642, related to hydrodermabrasion systems.
• Initial Stay of Proceedings (2024-09-11): The District Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in this case. The stay was pending the final determination of a corresponding investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC), identified as Investigation Number 337-TA-1416 (the "ITC Sinclair Matter").
• Parallel ITC Investigation Termination (2025-02-19): The Administrative Law Judge in the ITC Sinclair Matter issued an Initial Determination granting HydraFacial's motion to terminate the investigation, leading to its termination.
• Motion to Lift Stay (2025-03-14): Following the termination of the ITC investigation, HydraFacial filed a Motion to Lift Stay and Accompanying Memorandum (ECF No. 25) in the district court.
• Stay Lifted (2025-04-18): The District Court granted HydraFacial's motion, officially lifting the stay and allowing the case to proceed.
• Inter Partes Review (IPR) Filings:
  • IPR2025-00445 (2025-01-10): Eunsung Global Corp. filed an IPR Petition challenging the validity of HydraFacial's U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052. However, Eunsung terminated its IPR proceedings against HydraFacial in July 2025.
  • IPR2025-00145 (2024-11-25): Sinclair Pharma Ltd and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. filed an IPR Petition challenging the validity of HydraFacial's U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287.
  • Two other IPRs, IPR2025-01169 and IPR2025-01217, were also initiated by Sinclair and AMP, with institution decisions anticipated in the first half of 2026. These remaining IPR proceedings are in their early stages.
• Preliminary Injunction Motion Filed (2025-06-13): HydraFacial filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on this motion was held on July 25, 2025, but as of late 2025, the judge had not yet issued an order.
• Partial Motion to Dismiss (2025-06-23): Aesthetic Management Partners filed a partial motion to dismiss, addressing a subset of HydraFacial's claims and requested remedies. A hearing for this motion has not yet been scheduled.
• Current Posture: The case is active, proceeding through the discovery phase. Discussions around settlement may be ongoing as part of standard litigation practice, but no specific settlement has been reported. No Markman hearing has been reported, nor have there been any trial events, verdicts, or appeals.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing HydraFacial LLC in HydraFacial LLC v. Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02480:

From Morgan Lewis & Bockius:

• Ali S. Razai (Counsel/Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA office.
  • Note: Co-chairs Morgan Lewis's IP litigation practice group and has significant experience in patent litigation across various technologies, including medical devices and life sciences.
• Benjamin B. Anger (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Focuses on patent and trade secret litigation, post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, and has represented clients in the medical device and technology sectors.
• Benjamin J. Everton (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Orange County, CA office. (Also listed under Knobbe Martens in one source, but Morgan Lewis appears more consistent for HydraFacial in related patent matters).
  • Note: His practice involves patent litigation in federal district courts and before the PTAB, particularly in mechanical and medical device fields.
• Christian D. Boettcher (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C. office. (Also listed under Knobbe Martens in one source).
  • Note: Specializes in patent litigation, particularly in complex technical areas, and has experience with medical device technologies.
• Alexander B. Stein (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
  • Note: Represents clients in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, with a focus on a range of technologies.
• Jacob L. Peterson (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
  • Note: Has experience in patent litigation, including pre-suit investigations, discovery, and trial.

From Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, LLP (Local Counsel):

• Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, LLP, Memphis, TN office.
  • Note: An experienced litigator with a broad practice, including serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Western District of Tennessee.
• Matthew M. Lubozynski (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, LLP, Memphis, TN office.
  • Note: Involved in various litigation matters, including supporting roles in intellectual property disputes.
• Emma Mansberg Weintraub (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Wyatt Tarrant & Combs, LLP, Memphis, TN office.
  • Note: Focuses on litigation and has appeared as local counsel in federal court.

From Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP:

• Julie F. Kirby (Counsel)
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement across various technologies.

Note: Some search results indicated both Knobbe Martens and Morgan Lewis & Bockius for certain attorneys (e.g., Benjamin J. Everton, Christian D. Boettcher) in general lists for HydraFacial. However, in more specific PTAB filings related to HydraFacial's '052 patent, Morgan Lewis & Bockius attorneys were consistently listed for HydraFacial LLC. Given the active nature of the case and the requirement to identify counsel of record, the most recent appearances would typically reflect current representation.

The defendant, Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC, and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc., are represented by the following counsel:

• Nicole Berkowitz Riccio (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.
  • Office Location: Unknown.
  • Note: Baker Donelson has a significant presence in the Western District of Tennessee and across the Southeast.

• Meaghan P. Luster (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
  • Office Location: Boston, MA (main office).
  • Note: Wolf Greenfield is a well-known intellectual property law firm, indicating patent litigation expertise.

• Michael N. Rader (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
  • Office Location: Boston, MA (main office).
  • Note: As a partner at Wolf Greenfield, Michael Rader likely has extensive experience in patent litigation.

• Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP.
  • Office Location: Memphis, TN.
  • Note: Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. is also listed as representing the plaintiff in some records, which may indicate his role as local counsel for both parties or a clerical error in reporting. However, given his explicit listing under defendant attorneys on other docket summaries, he is included here as defendant's local counsel.