Galderma v. Medinter: $6.83M Default Judgment for Sculptra Patent Infringement
Galderma Laboratories and Galderma S.A. filed suit in Delaware against Medinter US and affiliated entities alleging infringement of two patents covering the Sculptra poly-L-lactic acid dermal filler platform. After 1,894 days of litigation, the court entered a default judgment of $6,829,733 — plus $915.50 per day in compounding post-judgment interest — entirely in Galderma’s favour.
Sculptra IP dispute ends in full default judgment for Galderma
Galderma Laboratories L.P. and Galderma S.A. filed this infringement action on 29 November 2018 in the District of Delaware, asserting US7731758B2 and US6716251B1 — two patents underpinning the Sculptra and Sculptra Aesthetic poly-L-lactic acid biostimulant platform — against Medinter US LLC and a web of related entities including Medinter Ltd. UK, Medinter Ltd. BVI, Medgraft Microtech Inc., Anteco Pharma, Attwill Vascular Technologies, Attwill Medical Solutions, Dermavance Pharmaceuticals, and individual defendant Brenda J. Farrington. The defendants were alleged to have commercialised the DERMA VEIL Cutaneous Bio-Stimulant product in ways that infringed Galderma’s protected formulation and method claims.
The case closed on 5 February 2024 when the court entered an amended default judgment in favour of Galderma, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for pre- and post-judgment interest. The principal judgment of $6,829,733 incorporated pre-judgment interest against the Corporate Defendants — Medinter US LLC, Medinter Ltd. UK, Medinter Ltd. BVI, and Medgraft Microtech Inc. The court additionally awarded $915.50 per day in post-judgment interest, compounded annually, running from the amended judgment date until full satisfaction. A default judgment on the merits means the court found in Galderma’s favour without a contested trial, typically because the defendants failed to adequately defend or respond at a dispositive stage.
A duration of 1,894 days — nearly five and a quarter years — for a case that ultimately resolved by default rather than contested trial is notable, suggesting the defendants’ participation in the litigation was inconsistent or collapsed at a late stage. The multi-entity defendant structure, spanning BVI and UK entities alongside US LLCs and an individual, likely complicated service, jurisdictional determinations, and asset analysis, which may account for the extended timeline. The public record does not disclose whether any financial recovery has been or will be collectible against the named defendants, a material question given the offshore corporate structure involved.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 1894 days
1,894 days — over 5 years from filing to final amended judgment in Delaware
Default judgment on the merits: what the $6.83M ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without contested trial
A default judgment on the merits is entered when a defendant fails to adequately participate in litigation at a dispositive stage — for example, by failing to respond to motions, comply with court orders, or maintain legal representation. The court accepted Galderma’s pleaded damages, including pre-judgment interest, resulting in a final monetary award without a full evidentiary trial. This is a binding judicial finding of liability and damages, not merely a procedural termination.
Judgment on the meritsGalderma secures full monetary judgment and accruing interest
Galderma obtained a $6,829,733 judgment inclusive of pre-judgment interest, plus $915.50 per day in post-judgment interest compounding annually. The judgment reinforces the enforceability of its Sculptra PLLA patents. However, the practical value depends on the defendants’ ability to satisfy the award — the multi-entity, cross-border defendant structure raises real questions about collectibility that the public record does not resolve.
Full damages + daily interestCorporate defendants face $6.83M liability with no merits defence on record
Medinter US LLC, Medinter Ltd. UK, Medinter Ltd. BVI, and Medgraft Microtech Inc. each bear joint liability under the amended default judgment. By failing to mount a contested defence, these entities forfeited the opportunity to challenge infringement, claim scope, or damages. The accruing daily interest creates escalating financial exposure for any entity with reachable assets. Individual defendant Brenda J. Farrington’s position under the final order is not explicitly detailed in the public verdict text.
No merits defence recordedSculptra PLLA patents signal enforceability risk for bio-stimulant competitors
The judgment confirms that Galderma is willing to pursue multi-entity defendant structures across jurisdictions to protect its Sculptra IP. For competitors in the poly-L-lactic acid biostimulant space — including emerging DERMA VEIL-type products — this outcome consistently signals that Galderma will litigate and seek full monetary recovery. Any company commercialising PLLA-based cutaneous filler products in the US market should treat these two patents as active enforcement risks requiring careful FTO analysis.
Enforcement risk: PLLA dermal fillersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Galderma Laboratories | Individual | Global dermatology company — holder of US7731758B2 and US6716251B1 (Sculptra PLLA platform)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Galderma S.A. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medinter US, LLC | Company | Medinter US LLC and affiliated entities; commercialised DERMA VEIL cutaneous bio-stimulant productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Brenda J. Farrington | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Medgraft Microtech, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Medinter, Ltd. BVI | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Medinter, Ltd. UK | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Anteco Pharma, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Attwill Vascular Technologies, LP | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Attwill Medical Solutions, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dermavance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Barry Clayton McCraw | Attorney | Counsel for Galderma LaboratoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Galderma LaboratoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph A. Mahoney | Attorney | Counsel for Galderma LaboratoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Flynn | Attorney | Counsel for Galderma LaboratoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ying-zi Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Galderma LaboratoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Galderma LaboratoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aden M. Allen | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dennis D. Gregory | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Diyang Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward Powell, III | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ian Robert Liston | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer A. Ward | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matt Blair | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Medinter US, LLC | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicole W. Stafford | Attorney | Counsel for Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medinter US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s 5 February 2024 order amending the judgment to incorporate pre-judgment interest and awarding $915.50 per day in post-judgment interest reflects a merits finding entirely in Galderma’s favour. The default posture means no contested claim construction, invalidity, or non-infringement record exists — leaving Galderma’s patents unchallenged on the merits in this proceeding. The daily compounding interest provision creates escalating liability for Corporate Defendants and is consistent with Delaware courts’ standard approach to patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and applicable interest statutes.
US7731758B2 & US6716251B1 — Sculptra poly-L-lactic acid dermal filler platform
US7731758B2 (application no. US10/809349) and US6716251B1 (application no. US09/242103) protect Galderma’s Sculptra platform — a poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) injectable biostimulant used for soft tissue augmentation and facial volume restoration. Unlike traditional hyaluronic acid fillers, PLLA biostimulants work by triggering collagen synthesis over time. The earlier-filed US6716251B1 traces to application series 09/242103, indicating a late-1990s priority chain, while US7731758B2 reflects a continuation or related filing targeting formulation and method-of-use refinements. Both patents sit at the intersection of pharmaceutical formulation and aesthetic medicine.
Sculptra is a commercially significant product in the global aesthetics market, and these two patents represent core defensive IP for Galderma against generic and biosimilar-style PLLA entrants. The DERMA VEIL product at the centre of this dispute is directly competitive with Sculptra. For any company developing or distributing PLLA-based cutaneous biostimulants in the US, these patents represent material clearance risk. The outcome here — full default judgment with compounding interest — signals that Galderma monitors its competitive landscape and pursues enforcement across complex corporate structures.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7731758B2 and US6716251B1?
Any R&D team or product manager working on injectable poly-L-lactic acid biostimulants, soft tissue augmentation injectables, or competing cutaneous filler platforms for the US market should treat these two Galderma patents as mandatory FTO checkpoints. The DERMA VEIL product was found to infringe both patents in this proceeding, and the claim scope — which covers formulation composition and methods of use — can potentially reach a wide range of PLLA-based aesthetic products. The absence of a contested claim construction record means the full scope remains judicially untested.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscapes of US7731758B2 and US6716251B1 against your product formulation in hours rather than weeks. Eureka identifies prior art, prosecution history estoppel, and file-wrapper limitations that may create design-around pathways — and flags related Galderma continuation filings that could present additional enforcement risk. For in-house IP teams and outside counsel preparing freedom-to-operate opinions in the aesthetics sector, this is a foundational starting point.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7731758B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: PLLA dermal filler and aesthetics IP litigation in US courts
Browse comparable infringement actions involving poly-L-lactic acid injectables, dermal filler patents, and aesthetics platform IP litigated in the Delaware District Court and related US venues.
What this case signals for the dermal filler and aesthetics IP landscape
Galderma’s willingness to pursue default judgment against a multi-entity cross-border defendant group underscores the strength of its Sculptra patent position.
Multi-entity defendant structures do not dilute patent enforcement risk
Galderma successfully pursued eight defendants — spanning US LLCs, UK and BVI entities, and an individual — in a single Delaware action. The court’s amended default judgment applies to four corporate defendants jointly. This case demonstrates that fragmented corporate structures provide limited insulation against a determined patent holder willing to litigate through a five-year case.
Pre- and post-judgment interest motions are a critical damages amplifier
The final order in this case was triggered by Galderma’s post-trial motion for pre- and post-judgment interest, adding meaningful financial exposure beyond the base damages award. IP counsel handling aesthetics or pharmaceutical patent disputes in Delaware should treat interest motions as a standard — and highly impactful — component of damages strategy.
Laboratories v Medinter — key questions answered
The court entered an amended default judgment on 5 February 2024 in favour of Galderma Laboratories L.P. and Galderma S.A. The judgment totalled $6,829,733, including pre-judgment interest, against Medinter US LLC, Medinter Ltd. UK, Medinter Ltd. BVI, and Medgraft Microtech Inc. Additionally, post-judgment interest was awarded at $915.50 per day, compounded annually.
Galderma asserted two patents: US7731758B2 (application no. US10/809349) and US6716251B1 (application no. US09/242103). Both patents cover poly-L-lactic acid dermal filler technology associated with the Sculptra and Sculptra Aesthetic products. The defendant’s competing product was the DERMA VEIL Cutaneous Bio-Stimulant.
A default judgment on the merits means the court ruled in Galderma’s favour — finding infringement and awarding damages — without a contested trial. The defendants forfeited their opportunity to challenge infringement, claim validity, or damages by failing to adequately participate in the litigation. The judgment is a binding liability finding and creates escalating financial exposure through accruing daily post-judgment interest.
The case confirms active enforcement of US7731758B2 and US6716251B1 in the US market. Because the case resolved by default, no contested claim construction record was established, meaning the full enforceable scope of these patents remains judicially untested. Companies developing or distributing PLLA-based biostimulant products in the US should conduct thorough FTO analysis against both patents before commercialisation.
The case ran for 1,894 days — approximately five years and two months — from filing in November 2018 to the final amended judgment in February 2024. The multi-entity defendant structure, spanning US LLCs, BVI and UK entities, and an individual, likely complicated service, jurisdictional issues, and asset analysis. The eventual default resolution suggests the defendants’ participation in the litigation may have broken down at a late stage, though the detailed procedural history is not fully disclosed in the available public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.