HydraFacial LLC v. Sinclair Pharma Limited et al.

The case of HydraFacial LLC v. Sinclair Pharma Limited et al., case number 2:24-cv-06250, is an active patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, HydraFacial LLC, is a prominent brand in the beauty health sector, operating as a subsidiary of The Beauty Health Company (NASDAQ: SKIN), and focuses on developing and marketing patented hydrodermabrasion technology for skin treatments. The defendants, Sinclair Pharma Limited, Sinclair Pharma US, Inc., and Viora, Inc., are part of an international specialty pharmaceutical company primarily focused on aesthetic dermatology and medical aesthetics, with Sinclair Pharma Limited being a UK-based entity acquired by Huadong Medicine Company Limited.

The core of the dispute revolves around the alleged infringement of HydraFacial's patents related to hydrodermabrasion systems. Specifically, HydraFacial has asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052, among others, which generally describes an apparatus for treating skin with a console, a handpiece assembly, and a manifold system to control fluid flow from multiple fluid sources to the handpiece. The accused products are hydrodermabrasion systems sold by Sinclair, with mentions of Sinclair's "Preime system" in related proceedings.

This case is procedurally notable due to its linkage with parallel proceedings at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). HydraFacial filed a complaint with the ITC (Investigation No. 337-TA-1416) in August 2024, alleging that Sinclair Pharma and other entities infringe several of its patents, including the '052 patent, through the importation and sale of certain hydrodermabrasion systems. The district court proceedings have been stayed pending the resolution of the ITC investigation. Furthermore, Sinclair Pharma Limited initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00145) against HydraFacial's U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, but this IPR was de-instituted by the USPTO Director in February 2026 due to the ITC's prior adjudication of the patent's validity, emphasizing the influence of parallel adjudications on PTAB discretion. The assigned judge for the district court case is United States District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. The Central District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, often ranking among the top districts for patent filings, known for its high case volumes, experienced judges, and a patent pilot program that assigns cases to a select group of judges.

I'll research the docket and related proceedings for this case.

Good initial grounding. Let me dig into the ITC termination, the district court docket, and the IPRs on the asserted patents.

Let me dig into the district court stay timeline (mediation stay, second IPR stay) and the pending IPRs on the asserted patents.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — HydraFacial LLC v. Sinclair Pharma Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-06250 (C.D. Cal.)

Disclaimer on sourcing: PACER for this case is not directly accessible to me. The chronology below is reconstructed from (a) the court's own PDF order uploaded as an exhibit in the PTAB record, (b) Federal Register / USITC notices, (c) the USPTO Director's decision in IPR2025-00145, (d) HydraFacial/The Beauty Health Company SEC disclosures (which describe this case by name and number), and (e) secondary coverage (Finnegan, Law360, PatSnap). Where a date comes only from an AI-generated docket summary (PatSnap), I flag it. I found no answer, counterclaim, claim-construction order, summary-judgment ruling, or trial date in this docket — the case has been under a stay for essentially its entire life.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Patent discrepancy — flagging explicitly. The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 ("the '052 patent"). The complaint, however, is consistently described in HydraFacial's own SEC filings as asserting five patents; a PatSnap docket summary identifies them as US 11,865,287 ('287), US 10,357,642 ('642), US 9,550,052 ('052), US 11,446,477 ('477), and US 10,357,641 ('641). The related ITC action asserted only two of these ('287 and '052). I could not confirm the asserted-patent list directly from the docket, so treat the five-patent list as probable but unverified. This is the single biggest open factual question in the district court case.

No answer or counterclaims on record. The complaint was apparently never met with an answer. The court's April 2025 mediation-stay order (quoted below) expressly provides that "Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint will be set by agreement at a date after conclusion of the requested stay" — i.e., nearly nine months post-filing, no responsive pleading had been filed. Because the case was then re-stayed pending the IPRs, there appear to be no Rule 12 motions, no counterclaims of invalidity/non-infringement pleaded in the district court, and no Rule 26(f) discovery plan in this case.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — the two stays (the only substantive motions)

(a) First stay — pending the ITC investigation (granted 2024-10-23)

• 2024-09-19: Sinclair Pharma Limited, Sinclair Pharma US, Inc., and Viora, Inc. filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending ITC Resolution (ECF No. 30).
• 2024-10-23: Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued the Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending ITC Resolution, ordering "all deadlines in this proceeding are stayed pending resolution of the corresponding ITC action."
  • Source: the signed order, retrieved at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556741](/patent/1556741)/download-documents?artifactId=-a7PkXmwYS0o634SZPg7yShPwVY_wLdcbvtFarp3a-yM7JX0WkZqaBo

This is a "first-filed/ITC-deference" stay under In re Cygnus Telecomms.-type reasoning, and it is the dispositive procedural fact of the case: virtually no merits work has occurred in the district court.

(b) Second stay — pending court-ordered mediation (spring 2025)

After the ITC terminated its investigation (see §5), the district court lifted the ITC stay, and the parties stipulated to a mediation stay:

• 2025-04-28 (per PatSnap docket summary; date approximate): The court granted the parties' Joint Stipulation to Stay the Case Pending Mediation, ordering:
  • "All proceedings are STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED in this matter for 60 days until June 20, 2025, by which time the Parties will provide a status report to the Court of the outcome of mediation";
  • "Upon the failure to timely file a status report, this action shall be deemed dismissed as of June 21, 2025"; and
  • the defendants' answer deadline deferred to a date to be set by agreement after the stay.
  • Source: PACER Order quoted in the PatSnap case analysis, https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/hydrafacial-v-sinclair-pharma-viora-hydrodermabrasion-patent-dispute-patsnap/

This is the "administrative-closure-with-conditional-dismissal" device the C.D. Cal. uses to clear its docket. Because HydraFacial's later SEC filings describe the case as still live and being pursued, a status report was evidently filed and the conditional dismissal never took effect.

(c) Third stay — discovery stayed pending the IPRs (2025–present)

Per HydraFacial's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 2026-06-30 (filed Aug. 2026):

"The Sinclair Case was stayed pending the resolution of an ITC investigation against Sinclair. The ITC investigation was terminated in February 2025, and the district court judge lifted the stay for a short time before staying discovery again in view of the IPRs that were instituted and stayed. Hydrafacial expects for this stay to be lifted once the remaining IPRs are de-instituted."

Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/[1818093](/patent/1818093)/000162828026054476/skin-20260630.htm

No motion to dismiss, no motion to transfer, no summary-judgment motion, and no preliminary-injunction motion has been filed on this docket (contrast the parallel AMP case in W.D. Tenn., where HydraFacial did move for a PI — 2025-06-13 — and AMP filed a partial motion to dismiss).

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None in this case. The case was stayed within three months of filing and has never reached a scheduling order, Rule 26(f) conference, or Markman briefing. There is no C.D. Cal. claim-construction order for the '052 (or any other asserted) patent.

The nearest thing to a construction ruling comes from the parallel ITC action (Inv. No. 337-TA-1408, Certain Hydrodermabrasion Systems and Components Thereof), where the Commission, in its 2026-03-23 final determination, (1) affirmed and supplemented the ALJ's construction of "fluid communication," (2) **vacated the FID's finding that

HydraFacial LLC is represented by attorneys from the firm Knobbe Martens. Although specific roles like "lead counsel" or "local counsel" are not explicitly designated in public records without direct access to the docket, based on the firm's specialization in intellectual property and its common representation of patent holders in the Central District of California, it is highly probable they serve as lead counsel.

As of the current information, the following attorneys from Knobbe Martens have been involved in related proceedings concerning HydraFacial's patents and are highly likely to be representing HydraFacial in this district court case:

• Salima Merani, Ph.D. (Partner, Knobbe Martens, Orange County, CA). Dr. Merani is known for her extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the medical device and biotechnology fields. She frequently represents clients in district court, ITC, and PTAB proceedings.
• Sabrina C. O'Farrell (Partner, Knobbe Martens, Orange County, CA). Ms. O'Farrell's practice focuses on patent litigation, with experience in various technology areas, including medical devices. She has been involved in ITC investigations and district court cases for HydraFacial.

These attorneys have been identified as representing HydraFacial LLC in documents related to the ITC investigation (Investigation No. 337-TA-1416) and IPR proceedings (IPR2025-00145), both of which are closely linked to the current district court case. It is common for the same legal team to handle parallel proceedings for a client.

Please note: Direct access to the Central District of California PACER docket for case 2:24-cv-06250 would provide the most definitive and up-to-date list of counsel of record and their specific roles. This information is based on related public filings.

Based on the available information, the defendants Sinclair Pharma Limited, Sinclair Pharma US, Inc., and Viora, Inc. are represented by counsel from at least two firms:

Foley & Lardner LLP

• R. Spencer Montei (Attorney) - Likely lead counsel, given his presence in related ITC filings for Sinclair Pharma US Inc.. Foley & Lardner LLP is a large national firm with significant intellectual property and litigation practices.

Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel

• Matthew Duescher (Attorney) - Also listed in related ITC filings for Sinclair Pharma US Inc.. Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel is a firm specializing in intellectual property law.

These attorneys have been identified through their appearance in related proceedings, specifically ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1416, which named Sinclair Pharma US Inc. and Sinclair Pharma Ltd. as respondents and involved the same patents at issue in the district court case (including the '052 patent). While the district court case is currently stayed, these attorneys are likely to be counsel of record when the stay is lifted.

No information explicitly detailing their roles (lead counsel, local counsel, etc.) for the district court case specifically was immediately available, nor were one-line notes on relevant patent litigation experience beyond the fact of their representation in these related proceedings. The docket for the district court case (2:24-cv-06250) was not directly accessible to confirm formal appearances in that specific venue.