DCT
3:25-cv-00151
GlycoBioSciences Inc v. Revlon Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GlycoBioSciences Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Revlon Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00151, M.D. Fla., 02/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business, including a corporate office and distribution center, within the Middle District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cosmetic foundation products infringe two patents related to stable, high-concentration formulations of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns chemical formulations for cosmetics, specifically the use of sodium hyaluronate (a popular moisturizing agent) in a polymer matrix designed to ensure stability and effective delivery in skin care products.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it contacted Defendant regarding the patents-in-suit prior to filing the complaint in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the matter. The complaint also notes that U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,821,005 and that they share an expiration date.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 Priority Date |
| 2015-07-23 | U.S. Patent No. 9,821,005 Priority Date |
| 2017-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,821,005 Issued |
| 2019-06-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 Issued |
| 2025-02-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,821,005 - "Polymer Matrix Compositions Comprising a High Concentration of Bio-fermented Sodium Hyaluronate and Uses Thereof," issued November 21, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the technical challenge of creating stable cosmetic and pharmaceutical formulations that contain a high concentration (above 1.5% w/w) of sodium hyaluronate ('005 Patent, col. 2:11-22). It notes that such high-concentration formulas are often unstable and that sodium hyaluronate derived from animal sources (like rooster combs) carries risks of allergic reactions and disease transmission ('005 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by using sodium hyaluronate obtained from a non-animal, bacterial fermentation process ("bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate") and combining it with specific components, including a non-ionic polymer, polyethylene glycol, and methylparaben, to form a stable polymer matrix gel ('005 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-63). The use of pharmaceutical or compendial grade ingredients is also highlighted as a key feature for ensuring quality and stability ('005 Patent, col. 3:11-16).
- Technical Importance: The invention purports to provide a method for creating safe, stable, and highly concentrated hyaluronic acid gels for cosmetic and therapeutic use, avoiding the risks associated with animal-derived ingredients and overcoming the instability that plagued earlier high-concentration formulas ('005 Patent, col. 2:31-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶23). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a composition with the following essential elements:
- A stable topical polymer matrix gel composition comprising:
- 1.5% w/w to 3.5% w/w bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate;
- 0.1% w/w to 2.0% w/w hydroxyethylcellulose;
- 2% w/w to 4% w/w polyethylene glycol;
- 0.1% w/w to 0.3% w/w methylparaben; and
- water.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 - "System and Method for Incentivizing Wireless Device Users to Interact with Sponsor Offers and Advertising," issued June 18, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem that advertisements ("ads") presented to users on mobile wireless devices are often viewed as "unwanted clutter or worse" and are frequently ignored, creating barriers for sponsors seeking to have their content reviewed ('142 Patent, col. 1:25-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer system that incentivizes mobile users to engage with sponsor content by providing credits to their wireless service provider accounts ('142 Patent, Abstract). The system includes network interfaces, databases, and a computer processor that manages communications between sponsors, mobile users, and wireless providers to verify user interactions and process payments and credits ('142 Patent, col. 2:48-65; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The patented system offers a technical framework for a business method that directly links consumer engagement with advertising content to a tangible financial reward (a discount on a wireless bill), aiming to increase ad interaction rates on mobile devices ('142 Patent, col. 1:40-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶29), though it describes the patent's technology in a manner inconsistent with the provided patent document (Compl. ¶19). Independent Claim 1 of the provided ’142 Patent is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a computer system with the following essential elements:
- An open network interface for transmitting messages;
- A database storing wireless device account data, sponsor account data, and wireless service provider data;
- A computer with a processor and memory executing instructions to perform a series of steps, including:
- Verifying messages from wireless devices and sponsors;
- Generating and sending messages to wireless devices;
- Generating and storing credit data associated with wireless devices;
- Generating and sending a debit message to a payment service;
- Generating and sending payment messages to a wireless service provider.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "Hyaluronic Acid, 24-Hour Hydration, Revlon Colorstay™ Longwear Makeup" and the “Illuminance, 5% Squalane Hyluronic Acid 517, Skin-Caring Foundation” (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are cosmetic foundations that contain high concentrations of Hyaluronic Acid within a polymer matrix (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides images of the products' packaging, which highlight the presence of "HYALURONIC ACID" as a key feature (Compl. p. 7). The ingredient list for the "Colorstay" product shows "Sodium Hyaluronate" and "Methylparaben," among other components (Compl. p. 7). The ingredient list for the "Illuminance" product also shows "Sodium Hyaluronate" (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges these are infringing formulations manufactured and sold by Defendant Revlon (Compl. ¶2, ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’005 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a stable topical polymer matrix gel composition comprising: | The complaint alleges the accused products are formulations that have all the elements of the claims. | ¶15 | col. 3:1-9 |
| 1.5% w/w to 3.5% w/w bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate | The accused products are alleged to contain "high concentrations of Hyaluronic Acid" and their ingredient lists include "Sodium Hyaluronate". | ¶15, ¶23 | col. 2:58-65 |
| 0.1% w/w to 2.0% w/w hydroxyethylcellulose | The complaint alleges the accused products contain a "non-ionic polymer" and lists "Ammonium Acryloyldimethyltaurate/VP Copolymer" as an ingredient. | ¶15, ¶23 | col. 6:44-51 |
| 2% w/w to 4% w/w polyethylene glycol | The complaint does not identify polyethylene glycol as an ingredient in the accused products, but the patent lists it as a solvent. | ¶23 | col. 9:48-50 |
| 0.1% w/w to 0.3% w/w methylparaben | The ingredient list for the "Colorstay" product, as depicted in a photograph, includes "Methylparaben". | p. 7 | col. 3:55-60 |
| and water | The ingredient list for the "Illuminance" product, as depicted in a photograph, lists "Aqua/Water/Eau" as the second ingredient. | p. 7 | col. 3:60 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the "Sodium Hyaluronate" in Revlon's products is "bio-fermented" as required by the claim. The ingredient list alone does not specify the source (Compl. p. 7). Further, the claim recites "hydroxyethylcellulose," whereas the complaint identifies other polymers in the accused products, raising the question of whether there is literal infringement or if an argument under the doctrine of equivalents will be necessary.
- Technical Questions: The patent defines "stable" with specific testing parameters ('005 Patent, col. 3:1-9). The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused products meet this functional limitation. A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery and testing confirm the accused products satisfy the claimed concentration ranges and stability requirements.
’142 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused cosmetic products infringe the ’142 Patent by including a list of chemical ingredients (Compl. ¶29). However, the provided U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 is directed to a "System and Method for Incentivizing Wireless Device Users" and its claims recite a computer system, a database, and a processor, not a chemical composition ('142 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:41-12:55). The infringement allegations in the complaint (listing cosmetic ingredients) do not appear to read on any element of the claims of the provided ’142 Patent. This suggests a fundamental disconnect between the patent asserted and the theory of infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate" (’005 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term is the central technological pillar of the '005 patent, distinguishing the invention from prior art using animal-derived hyaluronate. The infringement case depends on proving that the "Sodium Hyaluronate" listed in Defendant's products (Compl. p. 7) meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the source of the ingredient is not apparent from the product packaging.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to sodium hyaluronate obtained from a "bacterial source" and mentions both Streptococcus zooepidemicus and Bacillus subtilis as examples, which could support an interpretation covering hyaluronate from any bacterial fermentation process ('005 Patent, col. 2:62-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and summary specifically reference sodium hyaluronate "obtained from a Streptococcus zooepidemicus source" ('005 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:58-62). A defendant could argue this language limits the term to that specific bacterial source.
The Term: "stable" (’005 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term is not merely descriptive but is defined with objective, technical criteria. Infringement requires proof that the accused products meet these specific performance metrics. Practitioners may focus on this term because it imposes a high evidentiary burden on the plaintiff.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide detail for analysis of this element.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides an explicit definition: "the amount of sodium hyaluronate in the formulation does not vary by more than +/-10% (w/w) relative to the original amount provided in the composition, at 40° C., 75% relative humidity (accelerated stability conditions) for a period of at least 6 months" ('005 Patent, col. 3:1-9). This specific, quantitative definition provides strong evidence for a narrow construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement by "making, distributing and selling the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents (Compl. ¶25, ¶31). The factual basis is the allegation that Plaintiff contacted Defendant about the infringement before filing suit and that Defendant "has no good faith defense" and "intentionally continued its infringement" (Compl. ¶17, ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Dispositive Pleading Question: For the ’142 patent, does the complaint's complete failure to allege infringement of the actual claims of the asserted patent—which relate to a computer system for wireless advertising, not cosmetic ingredients—constitute a fatal pleading defect requiring dismissal of that count?
- An Evidentiary Question of Composition: For the ’005 patent, can the Plaintiff produce evidence to prove that Defendant’s products meet the specific quantitative and qualitative limitations of the claims, namely that the sodium hyaluronate is "bio-fermented," that the formulation is "stable" as defined in the patent, and that the listed ingredients literally meet or are equivalent to the claimed "hydroxyethylcellulose"?
- A Question of Claim Scope: Will the court construe "bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate" broadly to mean any bacterially-derived hyaluronate, or will it be limited to the specific Streptococcus zooepidemicus source emphasized in the patent's summary, potentially narrowing the scope of infringement?