Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Hydrafacial v. Medicreations | Patent Lawsuit 2:24-cv-00855

Hydrafacial, LLC v. Medicreations, LLC

2:24-cv-00855 D. Nev. Closed 12 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 6 May 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and closed 7 Apr 2026, with 12 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:24-cv-00855
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Nev.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Nevada
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
6 May 2024 – 7 Apr 2026
Duration
701 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
HydraFacial MD® · HydraFacial® Nectre™ · MediSpa · the HydraFacial® Allegro™ · the HydraFacial® Core™ systems · the HydraFacial® Elite™ · the HydraFacial® Tower™ · the HydraFacial® Wave™
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:24-cv-00855, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US11865287B2 Inactive App. US18/094884

Devices and methods for treating skin

An apparatus for treating skin has a console with a user input device and a handpiece assembly. The handpiece assembly is configured to treat skin. A fluid line provides fluid communication between the console and the handpiece assembly. A manifold system is coupled to the console and controlled by the user input device. The manifold system is configured to hold releasably a plurality of fluid sources and deliver fluid from at least one of the plurality of fluid sources to the handpiece assembly.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
9 Jan 2024
Earliest priority
2 Feb 2006
Est. expiry
29 Mar 2026
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2024-01491 · Patentability · filed by EUNSUNG GLOBAL CORPIPR2025-00145 · Patentability · filed by SINCLAIR PHARMA LIMITED
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61M35/00A61B17/54A61B50/10A61B50/13A61M1/00A61B17/3205A61B17/50A61M37/00A61B17/00A61N5/06A61B17/32
Examiner
EREZO, DARWIN P
US11865287B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11865287B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US8048089B2 Active App. US11/392348

Apparatus and methods for treating the skin

An apparatus for treating skin has a console with a user input device and a handpiece assembly. The handpiece assembly is configured to treat skin. A fluid line provides fluid communication between the console and the handpiece assembly. A manifold system is coupled to the console and controlled by the user input device. The manifold system is configured to hold releasably a plurality of fluid sources and deliver fluid from at least one of the plurality of fluid sources to the handpiece assembly.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
1 Nov 2011
Earliest priority
30 Dec 2005
Est. expiry
21 Jul 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61B17/50
Examiner
YAO, SAM
US8048089B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8048089B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Hydrafacial, LLC

Core tech
A61M35/00A61B17/54A61B50/10A61B50/13
Counsel
Ali S. Razai · Benjamin J. Everton · Brandon G. Smith · Christian D. Boettcher · F. Christopher Austin · Kevin D. Everage · Michael N. Feder · Robert W. Servilio · Zachary Messick
Firm
Dickinson Wright PLLC, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP, Lex Tecnica, Ltd., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Defendant

Medicreations, LLC

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Benjamin Bernell · Jenapher Lin · Lars K. Evensen · Luke Hartman · Steven P. Tepera · Teague I. Donahey
Firm
Holland & Hart LLP, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (Austin)

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Plaintiff Hydrafacial LLC, formerly known as Edge Systems LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Medicreations, LLC (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate to dismiss the present action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Principle and Request to Stay All Dates (“Joint Notice”) on January 29, 2026. Dkt. 119. That same day, the Court stayed all deadlines and directed the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal or a joint status report by March 2, 2026. Dkt. 120. On March 2, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report requesting an additional fourteen (14) days to file a stipulation of dismissal. Dkt. 122. That same day, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal or a joint status report by March 16, 2026. Dkt. 123. On March 16, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report regarding the settlement agreement, requesting an additional thirty (30) to satisfy conditions precedent and file a stipulation of dismissal. Dkt. 124. The parties have now satisfied the conditions precedent. The parties have resolved their dispute and entered into a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses in this case are dismissed with prejudice with each party agreeing to bear its own costs, attorneys fees, and expenses”

Case 2:24-cv-00855 · D. Nev. · closed 7 April 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:24-cv-00855?

2:24-cv-00855 is a patent infringement action brought by Hydrafacial, LLC against Medicreations, LLC, filed on 6 May 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The case closed on 7 April 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 2:24-cv-00855?

US11865287B2 (“Devices and methods for treating skin”), assigned to HYDRAFACIAL LLC, currently inactive; US8048089B2 (“Apparatus and methods for treating the skin”), assigned to HYDRAFACIAL LLC, currently active; US8337513B2 (“Instruments and techniques for controlled removal of epidermal layers”), assigned to EDGE SYSTEMS LLC; US10357642B2 (“Removable tips for use with skin treatment systems”), assigned to HYDRAFACIAL LLC; US9550052B2 (“Console system for the treatment of skin”), assigned to HYDRAFACIAL LLC; US9468464B2 (“Methods for treating the skin using vacuum”), assigned to EDGE SYSTEMS LLC; US7678120B2 (“Instruments and techniques for controlled removal of epidermal layers”), assigned to EDGE SYSTEMS LLC; US8066716B2 (“Instruments and techniques for controlled removal of epidermal layers”), assigned to EDGE SYSTEMS LLC; US6641591B1 (“Instruments and techniques for controlled removal of epidermal layers”), assigned to EDGE SYSTEMS LLC; US11446477B2 (“Devices and methods for treating skin”), assigned to HYDRAFACIAL LLC; US7789886B2 (“Instruments and techniques for controlled removal of epidermal layers”), assigned to EDGE SYSTEMS LLC; US10357641B2 (“Tips for skin treatment device”), assigned to HYDRAFACIAL LLC. The record also lists HydraFacial MD®, HydraFacial® Nectre™, MediSpa, the HydraFacial® Allegro™, the HydraFacial® Core™ systems, the HydraFacial® Elite™, the HydraFacial® Tower™ and the HydraFacial® Wave™.

How was case 2:24-cv-00855 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Hydrafacial LLC, formerly known as Edge Systems LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Medicreations, LLC (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate to dismiss the present action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Principle and Request to Stay All Dates (“Joint Notice”) on January 29, 2026. Dkt. 119. That same day, the Court stayed all deadlines and directed the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal or a joint status report by March 2, 2026. Dkt. 120. On March 2, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report requesting an additional f

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 2:24-cv-00855 take?

701 calendar days, from filing on 6 May 2024 to closure on 7 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:24-cv-00855?

Ali S. Razai, Benjamin J. Everton, Brandon G. Smith, Christian D. Boettcher, F. Christopher Austin, Kevin D. Everage, Michael N. Feder, Robert W. Servilio and Zachary Messick are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Hydrafacial. Benjamin Bernell, Jenapher Lin, Lars K. Evensen, Luke Hartman, Steven P. Tepera and Teague I. Donahey appear for defendant Medicreations.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:24-cv-00855 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:24-cv-00855 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.