HydraFacial LLC v. Medicreations, LLC

This patent infringement litigation, HydraFacial LLC v. Medicreations, LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Case No. 2:24-cv-00855). The plaintiff, HydraFacial LLC, is an operating company known as a prominent brand in the beauty health sector, particularly for its hydradermabrasion treatments and patented Vortex-Fusion® technology. HydraFacial, a subsidiary of The Beauty Health Company (NASDAQ: SKIN), is a market leader with over 35,000 devices globally and millions of treatments performed annually. The defendant, Medicreations, LLC, is also an operating company that manufactures aesthetic laser and energy-based treatment devices, including multifunctional facial treatment systems. Medicreations prides itself on offering USA-made technology with an industry-leading two-year warranty on its devices.

HydraFacial accused Medicreations of infringing its patents through the sale of Medicreations' hydrodermabrasion systems. While the prompt specifically mentions patent 9550052, SEC filings indicate that HydraFacial initially alleged infringement of twelve of its patents in this case. U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052, titled "Console system for the treatment of skin," generally describes an apparatus for skin treatment featuring a console with a user input, a handpiece assembly to treat skin, and a manifold system that holds and delivers fluid from various sources to the handpiece. This technology is central to HydraFacial's core business of non-invasive, three-step hydradermabrasion treatments involving cleansing, extracting, and hydrating the skin. The case was assigned to Judge Miranda M. Du.

This case is notable within the highly competitive and growing beauty health industry, particularly the hydradermabrasion market, which was valued at approximately USD 782.5 million in 2024 for professional machines. HydraFacial maintains a significant market presence, backed by a portfolio of over 175 patents. The procedural posture saw the court deny HydraFacial's motion for a preliminary injunction, citing unreasonable pre-filing and post-filing delay, as HydraFacial was aware of the alleged infringement since October 2020 but did not file suit until May 2024 and waited another year to seek injunctive relief. Furthermore, there has been an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00445) filed by Eunsung Global Corp. on January 10, 2025, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052, indicating parallel challenges to the asserted patent's validity. On April 7, 2026, the case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Miranda M. Du after a stipulation.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome in the patent infringement litigation between HydraFacial LLC and Medicreations, LLC:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• 2024-05-06: Complaint Filed
  HydraFacial LLC initiated the litigation by filing a complaint against Medicreations LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged patent infringement, asserting that Medicreations' hydrodermabrasion systems infringed twelve of HydraFacial's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 ("the '052 patent").

• 2024-07-26: Motion to Dismiss Filed
  Medicreations responded by filing a motion to dismiss HydraFacial's complaint.

• 2025-03-03: Order on Motion to Dismiss
  The court issued an order largely denying Medicreations' motion to dismiss. While "a few of Hydrafacial's claims to specific remedies" were dismissed, the "majority of the case and claims" were permitted to proceed to discovery.

• 2025-05-13: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed
  HydraFacial filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction against Medicreations.

• 2025-08-01: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Seal
  Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts issued an order regarding motions to file under seal related to the preliminary injunction filings. The order granted in part HydraFacial's request to seal documents attached to its preliminary injunction motion but denied sealing the motion itself. Medicreations' motion to seal portions of its response was granted.

• October 2025: Preliminary Injunction Denied
  The court denied HydraFacial's motion for a preliminary injunction. The denial was reportedly "due to unreasonable pre-filing and post-filing delay."

• Late 2025 - Early 2026: Discovery
  Following the court's denial of the preliminary injunction, the case proceeded through discovery, with depositions being scheduled.

• 2026-03-19: Settlement and Dismissal
  The parties reached a settlement agreement. Under the terms of the settlement, Medicreations agreed to pay HydraFacial $225,000 in past damages and a royalty of 35% on sales made in February and March 2026. As a result of this settlement, the case was dismissed.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

There is no public record indicating any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically initiated against U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 in relation to this case. Other HydraFacial patents were subject to IPRs in different contexts, but not the '052 patent in this specific litigation.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff HydraFacial LLC

HydraFacial LLC is represented by lead counsel from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and local counsel from Weide & Miller, LTD.

Lead Counsel

• Ali S. Razai

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA
  • Experience: Mr. Razai is a first-chair intellectual property litigator specializing in high-stakes disputes involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, false advertising, unfair competition, and breach of contract. He represents clients in biotechnology, medical device, pharmaceutical, and technology sectors before federal district courts, federal appellate courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has a background in molecular biology and previously worked as an antibody engineer. Mr. Razai joined Morgan Lewis in February 2025, from Knobbe Martens.

• Benjamin J. Everton

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA
  • Experience: Mr. Everton focuses his practice on intellectual property disputes, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and technology disputes, before federal district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB. He has extensive experience representing both patent owners and petitioners in inter partes review proceedings. His mechanical engineering background assists his representation of clients in industries such as medical devices, consumer electronics, automotive, and sporting goods. Mr. Everton also joined Morgan Lewis in February 2025, from Knobbe Martens, where he was co-chair of the firm's PTAB Trials practice group.

Local Counsel

• F. Christopher Austin
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Weide & Miller, LTD., Las Vegas, NV
  • Experience: Mr. Austin is listed on the initial complaint (Document 1) with a Nevada Bar Number, indicating his role as local counsel for the plaintiff. His firm, Weide & Miller, LTD., is based in Las Vegas, NV. Further specific details on his patent litigation experience were not immediately available beyond his appearance in this case as local counsel.

Medicreations, LLC, the defendant in HydraFacial LLC v. Medicreations, LLC, is represented by the following counsel:

Teague I. Donahey

• Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
• Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this case, but typically lead counsel appears from a firm outside the local jurisdiction. Further search would be needed to confirm his firm.
• Note: The court granted his verified petition for permission to practice pro hac vice on July 1, 2024, indicating he is not locally barred in Nevada.

Lars K. Evensen

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but as local counsel, his firm would likely be based in Nevada. Further search would be needed to confirm his firm and office location.
• Note: He was approved as local counsel for Medicreations, LLC on July 1, 2024.

A review of the provided search results indicates that while Teague I. Donahey and Lars K. Evensen are listed as counsel for Medicreations, LLC, their respective firms, office locations, and specific patent litigation experience are not detailed in the snippets. Additional targeted searches would be required to fully populate those fields.

It's important to note that other attorneys were mentioned in the search results, such as Jeff E. Scott, Jonathan E. Scott, and Quang Le, but the context indicates they are not counsel for Medicreations in this specific case. For example, Jeff E. Scott is General Counsel for Greenberg Traurig, and his experience is in commercial litigation and intellectual property generally. Jonathan O. Scott is a patent attorney with Beyer Law Group LLP, assisting clients with patent protection and managing patent portfolios. Quang Lap (also referred to as Quang Lap) is a singer recently charged in a copyright infringement crackdown in Vietnam and is not a US patent litigation attorney. Ali S. Razai and Benjamin J. Everton are listed as attorneys for the plaintiff, Hydrafacial LLC.