What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2025-11-06 compared with 2025-08-07 · 35 added, 36 removed, 207 unchanged (26% of the section changed)

15 unchanged sentences

Final judgment was entered on October 15, 2024.

On October 8, 2024, Hydrafacial filed an appeal in the New York Court challenging the New York Court’s final judgment and summary judgment decision of Cartessa’s non-infringement regarding the fourth patent-in-suit.

On October 8, 2024, Hydrafacial filed an appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the New York Court’s final judgment and summary judgment decision of Cartessa’s non-infringement regarding the fourth patent-in-suit.

On November 13, 2024, Cartessa filed a cross-appeal challenging the New York Court’s final judgment and summary judgment decision of granting Hydrafacial’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity regarding the fourth patent-in-suit.

6 unchanged sentences

Eunsung has consented to an exclusion order during the term of the Hydrafacial patent-in-suit.

In the ITC Cartessa Matter, the parties recently concluded the evidentiary hearing on April 9-15, 2025.

The parties filed post-hearing briefs in May 2025 and are awaiting the judge’s decision which Hydrafacial anticipates to be issued after August 17, 2025.

Hydrafacial continues to seek an exclusion order preventing importation or sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion systems within the United States.

In the ITC Cartessa Matter, the parties concluded the evidentiary hearing on April 9-15, 2025.

The parties filed post-hearing briefs in May 2025 and the judge issued an initial determination on August 26, 2025, finding that the patent is valid and infringed by Cartessa’s products.

The initial determination recommended an exclusion order and cease and desist order against Cartessa that would prevent importation or sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion systems within the United States.

The initial determination has been certified to the Commission and it is expected to issue a final determination by the end of 2025.

Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC - Second Complaint

20 unchanged sentences

In July 2025, Sinclair and AMP filed copycat IPR Petitions challenging the ’052 Patent and ’477 Patent (IPR2025-01169 and IPR2025-01217, respectively) based on the same arguments as Eunsung’s corresponding IPR Petitions.

The rest of the IPR proceedings are also in their early stages, with institution decisions expected to come between August-September 2025, and Hydrafacial plans to vigorously defend its patents against each of these challenges.

In July 2025, Eunsung terminated each of its IPR proceedings against Hydrafacial.

The only IPR proceedings still pending against Hydrafacial are the three Sinclair and AMP IPRs (IPR2025-00145, IPR2025-01169, and IPR2025-01217).

These remaining IPR proceedings are in their early stages, with one being instituted in June 2025, and the others still awaiting institution decisions that are expected to come in the first half of 2026.

Hydrafacial plans to vigorously defend its patents against each of these challenges.

Medicreations LLC

2 unchanged sentences

On March 3, 2025, the court issued an order dismissing a few of Hydrafacial’s claims to specific remedies, but the majority of the case and claims will move forward.

On May 13, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction that is still pending before the court with no hearing currently scheduled.

On May 13, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction that was denied in October 2025.

The Medicreations Case is proceeding through discovery with depositions being scheduled.

3 unchanged sentences

2:24-cv-06250 (the “Sinclair Case”), for patent infringement arising from Sinclair’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device.

The Sinclair Case was stayed pending the resolution of the ITC Sinclair Matter, discussed below.

Now that the ITC Sinclair Matter has been terminated, the judge lifted the stay in the Sinclair Case and it will proceed to discovery.

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 in the Sinclair Case.

This case is now proceeding into the discovery phase.

Hydrafacial will seek monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Sinclair and Viora.

On August 2, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Sinclair, Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc.

(“AMP”), their foreign manufacturer, EMA Aesthetics, Ltd.

(“EMA Aesthetics”), and H.R.

Meditech (“H.R.

Meditech”) in the United States International Trade Commission.

A Notice of Institution of Investigation was issued on September 10, 2024, and the investigation was assigned investigation number 337-TA-1416 (the “ITC Sinclair Matter”).

In the ITC Sinclair Matter, Hydrafacial has asserted that Sinclair, AMP, EMA Aesthetics, and H.R.

Meditech infringe Hydrafacial’s U.S.

11,865,287 and 9,550,052, which relate to hydrodermabrasion systems.

Hydrafacial is seeking an exclusion order preventing importation or sale of each of the respondents’ hydrodermabrasion systems within the United States.

On February 19, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination granting Hydrafacial’s motion to terminate the ITC Sinclair Matter, and as a result, the ITC Sinclair Matter is now terminated.

Aesthetic Management Partners Inc.

1 unchanged sentence

2:24-cv-02480-JPM-TMP (the “AMP Case”), for patent infringement arising from Aesthetic Management Partners’ sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device.

The AMP Case was stayed due to the corresponding ITC Sinclair Matter.

Now that the ITC Sinclair Matter has been terminated, the stay has been lifted and discovery will continue.

The AMP Case was stayed due to a corresponding ITC investigation.

The ITC investigation was terminated in February 2025, and the judge lifted the stay.

On June 13, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a motion for preliminary injunction for which the judge held a hearing on July 25, 2025, but the judge has not yet issued an order.

14 unchanged sentences

The Luvo Case was stayed due to the corresponding ITC Luvo Matter, but pursuant to the ITC settlement agreement, the parties filed a consent judgment in the Luvo Case that terminated the case as to Luvo and Healthcare Markets.

This case is now continuing against Eunsung and is in the early stages of discovery.

Hydrafacial will continue to seek monetary damages from Eunsung and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Eunsung who was not a party to the ITC settlement agreement.

This case continued against Eunsung until the parties achieved a settlement in July 2025, wherein Eunsung agreed to a consent judgment as well.

As a result, the Luvo Case has been dismissed.

On August 7, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Luvo, its distributor Healthcare Markets, Medical Purchasing Resource, eMIRAmed, and its manufacturer, MIRAmedtech, in the United States International Trade Commission.

3 unchanged sentences

After a mediation between the parties, on March 17, 2025, Hydrafacial signed a settlement agreement with Luvo and Healthcare Markets.

As a result, the ITC has terminated the investigation as to Luvo and Healthcare Markets, but Hydrafacial continues to pursue default judgment against the remaining respondents.

As a result, the ITC has terminated the investigation as to Luvo and Healthcare Markets, and issued default judgment against the remaining respondents.

eMIRAmed USA, LLC

10 unchanged sentences

Before filing any response to the complaint, MS Essentials agreed to shut down its business and stop all unlawful acts alleged in the complaint.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a consent judgment to dismiss the case on July 25, 2025.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a consent judgment, dismissing this case in July 2025.

Candela Corp.

3 unchanged sentences

1:25-cv-00418-JLH (the “Candela Case”), for patent infringement arising from Candela’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device.

The Candela Case is in its early stages and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Candela and Termosalud.

The Candela Case is in its early stages of discovery and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Candela and Termosalud.

BQ Aesthetix & Co., LLC

1 unchanged sentence

0:25-cv-61262-AHS (the “Bellatrix Case”), for patent infringement arising from Bellatrix’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed seven of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device.

The Bellatrix Case is in its early stages and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Bellatrix.

The Bellatrix Case is in its early stages of discovery and Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Bellatrix.

Securities Class Action

24 unchanged sentences

On July 11, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.

A hearing is scheduled on Defendants’ motion for September 17, 2025.

The Court scheduled a hearing on Defendants’ motion for September 17, 2025.

On September 15, 2025, the Court vacated the hearing sua sponte .

On September 25, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Defendants’ answer to the amended complaint is due November 24, 2025.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them.

Consumer Class Action

On October 24, 2024, Jason Davalos (“Jason Davalos”), Sonia Davalos (“Sonia Davalos”, and collectively with Jason Davalos, the “Davaloses”), and Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC (“Sol Tan”, and collectively with the Davaloses, the “Class Action Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Hydrafacial LLC d/b/a The Hydrafacial Company and The Beauty Health Company (collectively, the “Class Action Defendants”) for alleged violations of New York consumer fraud statutes, breach of contract, and common law breach of implied warranties (the “Consumer Class Action”).

Customer Class Action

The case is captioned Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.

13 unchanged sentences

G.B.L., § 349 and § 350.

On December 30, 2024, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consumer Class Action complaint in its entirety.

On December 30, 2024, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Customer Class Action complaint in its entirety.

On January 3, 2025, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss.

On January 8, 2025, the Davaloses voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Class Action Defendants pursuant to Fed.

41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving Plaintiff Sol Tan as the sole remaining Consumer Class Action Plaintiff.

41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving Plaintiff Sol Tan as the sole remaining Customer Class Action Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Sol Tan filed their opposition brief on January 9, 2025, and the Class Action Defendants filed their reply brief on January 13, 2025.

25 unchanged sentences

and (v) dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief.

The initial pretrial conference originally scheduled for July 18, 2025 has been adjourned to August 15, 2025.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consumer Class Action have no merit and Class Action Defendants intend to vigorously defend them.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery while they await the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Customer Class Action have no merit and Class Action Defendants intend to vigorously defend them

Consolidated Derivative Action

30 unchanged sentences

Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the court, Plaintiffs’ answering brief was filed on May 2, 2025, and Defendants’ reply brief was filed on June 3, 2025.

Oral argument before the Delaware Court of Chancery on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for October 8, 2025.

Although oral argument before the Delaware Court of Chancery on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for January 7, 2026, the parties held a mediation on November 4, 2025 and have reached agreement on certain terms of a mutually agreeable resolution.

However, the settlement discussions are ongoing and any final resolution is subject to the parties’ execution of a final settlement agreement and the Delaware Court of Chancery’s approval.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them.

Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) Subpoena

The Division of Enforcement of the SEC has issued three subpoenas in connection with a formal order of investigation of the Company seeking documents and information from us.

On January 11, 2024, the Company was informed that the SEC is conducting a formal investigation of the Company related to, among other things, the allegations brought against the Company in the Securities Class Action lawsuit.

The Company has subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and information related to its investigation.

The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas and intends to fully cooperate with the SEC investigation.

1 unchanged sentence

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings