Glycobiosciences v. Revlon: Hyaluronic Acid Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Glycobiosciences, Inc. asserted two hyaluronic acid formulation patents against Revlon’s ColorStay and Illuminance foundation lines in Florida’s Middle District. After 210 days of litigation, Glycobiosciences voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice — leaving the door open for future enforcement action.
A cosmetic patent dispute over HA foundations left deliberately unresolved
On February 11, 2025, Glycobiosciences, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 3:25-cv-00151) against Revlon, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. US9821005B2 and US10332142B2. The asserted patents relate to hyaluronic acid formulation technology, and the accused products were Revlon’s ‘Hyaluronic Acid, 24-Hour Hydration, ColorStay Longwear Makeup’ and the ‘Illuminance, 5% Squalane Hyaluronic Acid 517, Skin-Caring Foundation’ product lines.
The case closed on September 9, 2025 — 210 days after filing — when Glycobiosciences filed a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against Revlon without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means no judgment on the merits was entered; Glycobiosciences retains the legal right to refile the same claims at a later date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any tactical or procedural constraints.
The relatively swift resolution and the without-prejudice designation suggest the parties may have reached an informal accommodation, or that Glycobiosciences elected to withdraw and reassess its litigation strategy without conceding the underlying infringement claims. The public record is silent on whether any side agreement, licensing negotiation, or product reformulation by Revlon influenced the dismissal. Revlon’s representation by Baker Botts LLP — a firm with deep patent litigation experience — suggests a vigorous defense was mounted before the plaintiff opted to withdraw.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 210 days
210 days from filing to dismissal — shorter than the median patent infringement case in the M.D. Fla.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice designation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): the plaintiff’s right to exit without court approval
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a unilateral right — Revlon’s consent was not required. The dismissal takes effect upon filing, and the Clerk’s direction to close the case is purely administrative.
No court order requiredThe public record does not specify final settlement — only that claims survive
A dismissal without prejudice means Glycobiosciences’ infringement claims against Revlon are not extinguished. The company retains the right to refile. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar any future action on the same claims. The court’s order confirms ‘without prejudice’ status — but the public record is silent on whether a private agreement, licensing term, or product change accompanied the withdrawal.
Claims remain liveRevlon avoids a merits ruling — but not necessarily future exposure
Revlon secured the termination of this specific proceeding without any finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity. Baker Botts’s involvement suggests a substantive defense was prepared. However, because no claim construction or merits ruling was entered, Revlon gains no res judicata or collateral estoppel protection against a refiled suit asserting the same patents against the same products.
No merits protection gainedHyaluronic acid patent risk in cosmetics remains unresolved
The dismissal leaves US9821005B2 and US10332142B2 fully enforceable and unchallenged on the merits. Other cosmetics brands incorporating hyaluronic acid in long-wear or skin-caring foundation formulations face the same underlying patent risk that prompted this filing. Without a judicial validity ruling, the patents’ scope is untested — a meaningful consideration for any competitor conducting FTO analysis in the HA cosmetic formulation space.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Glycobiosciences, Inc. | Company | Specialty biotech IP holder — asserter of US9821005B2 and US10332142B2 (hyaluronic acid formulations)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Revlon | Individual | Global cosmetics company — maker of ColorStay and Illuminance foundation product lines.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Glycobiosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Zito | Attorney | Counsel for Glycobiosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Weir King | Attorney | Counsel for Glycobiosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito Castellano | Law Firm | Representing Glycobiosciences, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brenton Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for RevlonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer C. Tempesta | Attorney | Counsel for RevlonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lindsay Volpenhein Cutie | Attorney | Counsel for RevlonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing RevlonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order was entered pursuant to the plaintiff’s own filing under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a procedural mechanism requiring no judicial finding on the merits. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ is legally operative: it confirms Glycobiosciences’ infringement claims survive and may be reasserted. No claim construction, validity ruling, or damages determination was made, meaning neither party gained a substantive legal advantage from this proceeding. The court’s role was limited to administrative case closure.
US9821005B2 & US10332142B2 — Hyaluronic Acid Cosmetic Formulation Patents
US9821005B2 (application no. US14/818810) and US10332142B2 (application no. US13/829007) are both directed to hyaluronic acid-based formulation technology in the cosmetics and personal care domain. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a naturally occurring polysaccharide widely used in skincare and makeup for its moisture-retention and skin-plumping properties. The patents were asserted against Revlon’s 24-hour hydration and squalane-HA foundation products, suggesting claims that may cover specific HA concentrations, delivery mechanisms, or combination formulations used in long-wear cosmetic applications.
These patents represent a potential enforcement asset in the fast-growing prestige and mass-market HA cosmetics space. HA is now a ubiquitous ingredient in skin-caring foundations, tinted moisturisers, and hybrid makeup-skincare products. An unchallenged patent with broad formulation claims in this space poses a meaningful risk to competitors — particularly as brands reformulate legacy foundations with trending HA and squalane combinations. The absence of any IPR challenge or invalidity ruling leaves the patents’ scope and validity untested.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against US9821005B2 and US10332142B2?
Any cosmetics brand or contract manufacturer formulating foundations, tinted moisturisers, or skin-caring makeup products containing hyaluronic acid — particularly in combination with squalane or marketed under long-wear or 24-hour hydration claims — should conduct a targeted freedom-to-operate analysis against these two patents. The Glycobiosciences v. Revlon case confirms active enforcement intent, even if this proceeding ended without a merits ruling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their formulation parameters against the claim language of US9821005B2 and US10332142B2 in minutes. Upload your product specification or ingredient list, and Eureka will surface relevant claim elements, flag potential overlap, and identify prior art that may support a design-around or invalidity argument — before you face a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9821005B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hyaluronic acid and cosmetic formulation patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving hyaluronic acid, cosmetic formulations, and skincare patents filed in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the hyaluronic acid cosmetics IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit preserves enforcement optionality — and puts the broader cosmetics sector on notice.
Without-prejudice dismissals are not the end of enforcement risk
Glycobiosciences retains full right to refile against Revlon or assert these patents against other brands. Companies with HA-based foundation or long-wear makeup products should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a resolution. The patents in suit remain valid, enforceable, and fully available for future assertion.
Baker Botts’s involvement signals the defense took this seriously
Revlon retained Baker Botts LLP — a top-tier patent litigation firm — suggesting the defense strategy was substantive. The plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily dismiss before significant merits milestones (claim construction, summary judgment) may reflect either settlement dynamics or a recalibration of litigation strategy rather than a weakness in Revlon’s position.
Glycobiosciences v Revlon — key questions answered
Glycobiosciences, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Revlon in the Middle District of Florida on February 11, 2025, asserting US9821005B2 and US10332142B2 against Revlon’s hyaluronic acid foundation products. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on September 9, 2025, after 210 days, with no merits ruling entered.
The accused products were Revlon’s ‘Hyaluronic Acid, 24-Hour Hydration, ColorStay Longwear Makeup’ and the ‘Illuminance, 5% Squalane Hyaluronic Acid 517, Skin-Caring Foundation.’ Both products incorporate hyaluronic acid as a key active ingredient in their foundation formulations.
A dismissal without prejudice means Glycobiosciences’ infringement claims are not extinguished by the termination of this proceeding. The company retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Revlon — or assert the same patents against other defendants — subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made.
No. The case was dismissed before any substantive merits rulings, including claim construction or validity determinations. Both patents remain valid, enforceable, and available for future assertion. No inter partes review or other post-grant challenge is reflected in the available case record.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the voluntary dismissal. Possible explanations consistent with the record include: a private licensing or settlement agreement reached outside court; a strategic decision to reassess claim scope or litigation venue; or a response to Revlon’s defense posture following Baker Botts LLP’s engagement. The without-prejudice designation preserves all future enforcement options for the plaintiff.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.