DCT

4:25-cv-00991

Glycobiosciences Inc v. Dermalogica LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00991, E.D. Tex., 09/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including a corporate office and a "Learning Loft" in Plano, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of hyaluronic acid-based cosmetic products infringes two patents related to stable, high-concentration polymer matrix formulations for topical delivery.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical formulations used in the skincare industry to create stable, high-concentration gels of sodium hyaluronate, a popular moisturizing and therapeutic agent.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,821,005, and the two patents are co-terminus. No other prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-07-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,821,005 & 10,332,142
2017-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,821,005 Issued
2019-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 Issued
2025-09-09 Complaint Filed

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 (’005 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty in creating stable cosmetic or pharmaceutical formulations containing high concentrations (above 1.5% by weight) of sodium hyaluronate. Such formulations tend to break down quickly, reducing shelf life and efficacy. Additionally, sodium hyaluronate derived from animal sources (e.g., rooster combs) carries risks of allergic reactions and disease transmission (’005 Patent, col. 2:1-10, 2:11-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a stable gel composition that solves these problems by combining a high concentration (1.5% to 3.5%) of bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate with specific complementary ingredients: a non-ionic polymer (hydroxyethylcellulose), polyethylene glycol, and methylparaben, all of which are preferably of pharmaceutical or compendial grade. This specific combination, using a non-animal source for the active ingredient, is asserted to yield a stable and safe product (’005 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: The invention addresses a market need for more potent and stable hyaluronic acid products by enabling higher concentrations while avoiding the safety and stability issues associated with prior art formulations (’005 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, with Independent Claim 1 serving as the basis for its infringement chart (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 24; p. 7).
  • Claim 1 recites the essential elements of a stable topical polymer matrix gel composition:
    • 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 - Polymer Matrix Compositions Comprising a High Concentration of Bio-fermented Sodium Hyaluronate and Uses Thereof, issued June 18, 2019 (’142 Patent)

(Note: The provided patent document for U.S. Patent No. 10,332,142 does not correspond to the technology or title asserted in the complaint. The following analysis is based exclusively on the complaint's description of the ’142 Patent.)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’005 Patent, the ’142 Patent addresses the same stability and safety problems in high-concentration sodium hyaluronate formulations (Compl. ¶14).
  • The Patented Solution: The complaint alleges the ’142 Patent claims similar polymer matrix compositions but broadens the scope of the non-ionic polymer component beyond just hydroxyethylcellulose to include a larger group of polymers. The patent also includes method claims for treating dermatological conditions or damaged skin by topically applying the claimed composition (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19).
  • Technical Importance: This patent appears to broaden the protection of the core invention to cover formulations using alternative thickening agents and to explicitly cover the act of using the composition for treatment.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, with its infringement chart referencing composition claims (1 and 6) and a method claim (13) (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 30; pp. 9-11).
  • Claim 1 (as described in the complaint) recites a polymer matrix composition comprising:
    • about 1.5% w/w to about 3.5% w/w bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate;
    • about 0.1% w/w to about 2.0% w/w non-ionic polymer selected from a broad group;
    • about 2% w/w to about 4% w/w of polyethylene glycol (PEG); and
    • water.
  • Claim 13 (as described in the complaint) recites a method of treatment comprising topically applying the composition of claim 3 to treat a condition like a dermatological condition or damaged skin (Compl. ¶19; p. 11).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies five accused products: "Circular Hydration Serum with Hyaluronic Acid," "Phyto Nature Lifting Eye Cream," "Phyto Nature Firming Serum," "Phyto Nature Oxygen Cream," and "Hyaluronic Ceramide Mist" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as cosmetics containing high concentrations of hyaluronic acid within a polymer matrix for topical application to skin (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also alleges that Defendant provides treatments using these products at various "Learning Loft" and "Dermalogica Academy" locations, which forms the basis for infringement of the method claims in the ’142 Patent (Compl. ¶5). The complaint's claim chart for the ’142 Patent further alleges that the products are recommended for dry or aging skin, which are identified as dermatological conditions (Compl. p. 11).

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 presents a claim chart identifying various ingredients in the five accused products, such as Hyaluronic Acid, Sodium Hyaluronate, PEG-8, and Hydroxyethylcellulose (Compl. p. 7). ¶24; p. 7 col. 3:55-65
1.5% w/w to 3.5% w/w bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate; The products allegedly contain "Hyaluronic Acid" and/or "Sodium Hyaluronate" and various derivatives like "Sodium Acetylated Hyaluronate" and "Sodium Hyaluronate Crosspolymer" (Compl. p. 7). ¶24; p. 7 col. 4:54-65
0.1% w/w to 2.0% w/w hydroxyethylcellulose; At least one product allegedly contains "Hydroxyethylcellulose." Others allegedly contain "Microcrystalline Cellulose, Cellulose Gum" or "Ethylcellulose" (Compl. p. 7). ¶24; p. 7 col. 6:44-51
2% w/w to 4% w/w polyethylene glycol; The products allegedly contain "PEG-8," "PEG-100 Stearate," or "PEG-40." One product is accused of containing "Biosaccharide Gum-4" (Compl. p. 7). ¶24; p. 7 col. 8:52-65
0.1% w/w to 0.3% w/w methylparaben; and The complaint does not identify methylparaben as an ingredient in the accused products in its claim chart (Compl. p. 7). p. 7 col. 8:32-36
water. All accused products are water-based, listing "Water/Aqua" as a primary ingredient (Compl. p. 7). ¶24; p. 7 col. 5:13

’142 Patent Infringement Allegations

(Note: Patent citations are omitted as the provided patent document does not correspond to the asserted patent.)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A polymer matrix composition comprising: The complaint's claim chart for the ’142 Patent identifies ingredients in the accused products alleged to meet the claim limitations (Compl. pp. 9-10). The chart, a visual element within the complaint, provides the basis for these allegations (Compl. p. 9). ¶30; p. 9 N/A
about 1.5% w/w to about 3.5% w/w bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate, The products allegedly contain various forms of hyaluronic acid and its salts, such as "Hyaluronic Acid," "Sodium Hyaluronate," "Sodium Acetylated Hyaluronate," and "Sodium Hyaluronate Crosspolymer" (Compl. p. 9). ¶30; p. 9 N/A
about 0.1% w/w to about 2.0% w/w...non-ionic polymer, [wherein the non-ionic polymer is selected from a group...] The products allegedly contain various non-ionic polymers such as "Hydroxyethylcellulose," "Microcrystalline Cellulose," "Ethylcellulose," "Maltodextrin," and "Polysorbate 20." The complaint alleges some ingredients, like "Butylene Glycol," meet this limitation as "Equivalents" (Compl. p. 10). ¶30; p. 10 N/A
about 2% w/w to about 4% w/w of the polyethylene glycol (PEG), and The products allegedly contain various forms of PEG, such as "PEG-8," "PEG-100 Stearate," and "PEG-40." The complaint also lists "Biosaccharide Gum-4" as meeting this limitation for one product (Compl. p. 10). ¶30; p. 10 N/A
water The products are water-based, listing "Water/Aqua/Eau" as a primary ingredient (Compl. p. 10). ¶30; p. 10 N/A

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the various chemical derivatives listed in the accused products (e.g., "Sodium Hyaluronate Crosspolymer," "PEG-100 Stearate," "Ethylcellulose") fall within the literal scope of the claimed terms ("bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate", "polyethylene glycol", "hydroxyethylcellulose"). The complaint's notation of "Equivalents" suggests a potential dispute under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. p. 7). The omission of methylparaben from the complaint's chart for the ’005 Patent raises a direct question of whether all claim elements are met (Compl. p. 7).
  • Technical Questions: The claims require specific weight-by-weight percentages for each key ingredient. The complaint alleges the products "contain high concentrations" but does not provide specific quantitative analysis to show they meet the claimed ranges (Compl. ¶15). This suggests that factual evidence regarding the precise formulation of the accused products will be a critical point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention and appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents. Its definition is critical because infringement depends on whether the sodium hyaluronate in Dermalogica's products is sourced or manufactured in a way that falls within the term's scope, as distinct from the animal-derived prior art the patent sought to improve upon. Practitioners may focus on whether this term imparts specific purity, molecular weight, or process limitations.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly contrasts "bio-fermented" with material from an "avian source" or "animal origin," suggesting the term could be construed to mean any non-animal-derived sodium hyaluronate (’005 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly identifies bacterial sources such as Streptococcus zooepidemicus or Bacillus subtilis and describes a process involving fermentation, purification, and precipitation (’005 Patent, col. 4:54-58). This could support a narrower construction limited to sodium hyaluronate produced by specific bacterial fermentation processes.

  • The Term: "polyethylene glycol"

  • Context and Importance: This ingredient is required by the independent claims of both patents. The accused products list various PEG derivatives, such as "PEG-8," "PEG-100 Stearate," and "PEG-40" (Compl. p. 7). The dispute will likely center on whether these specific molecules, some of which are esters or have different molecular weights, are encompassed by the general term.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and the patent lists "polyethylene glycol" among a broad class of "suitable ingredients" without explicit limitation, which could support a construction covering a wide range of PEG compounds (’005 Patent, col. 6:23-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides examples using "PEG 200 grade" and discusses its molecular weight, suggesting the term may be limited to certain types or grades of polyethylene glycol commonly used in such formulations, potentially excluding more complex derivatives like PEG esters (’005 Patent, col. 8:56-62).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement of the method claims of the ’142 Patent. The factual basis alleged is that Dermalogica provides "education and training materials" and operates "Learning Lofts" and a "Dermalogica Academy" where it instructs skin care professionals and others to use the accused products in a manner that performs the claimed method of treatment (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The complaint asserts, upon "information and belief," that Defendant has "no good faith defense" to the infringement allegations and that its infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 32).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and evidentiary proof common in chemical formulation disputes. The key questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of chemical scope: Do the specific chemical species and derivatives present in the accused products (e.g., Sodium Hyaluronate Crosspolymer, PEG-100 Stearate, Biosaccharide Gum-4) fall within the ordinary meaning of the patent claims' broader terms ("bio-fermented sodium hyaluronate", "polyethylene glycol", "non-ionic polymer"), or will the plaintiff need to rely on the doctrine of equivalents?
  • A second key issue will be one of quantitative evidence: Can the plaintiff produce technical evidence, such as through reverse engineering or discovery, demonstrating that the accused product formulations contain the claimed ingredients within the specific weight-by-weight percentage ranges recited in the independent claims?
  • A final question relates to method infringement: What evidence exists to show that Dermalogica's own actions at its training facilities constitute direct infringement of the method claims, or that its instructions to consumers and professionals rise to the level of specific intent required to prove inducement?