Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC v. International Trade Commission

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CARTESSA AESTHETICS, LLC,
Appellant
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee
HYDRAFACIAL LLC, fka Edge Systems LLC,
Intervenor
______________________
2026-1582, 2026-1881
______________________
Appeals from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1408.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO , CHEN , and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
The United States International Trade Commission
(“Commission” or “ITC”) found a 19 U.S.C. § 1337 violation
based on Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC’s infringement of
Case: 26-1582 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

CARTESSA AESTHETICS , LLC v. ITC 2
Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of
an exclusion order because the patent was to expire on
March 29, 2026. Following patent expiration, Cartessa
moves to consolidate its appeals, dismiss them as moot, and
vacate the final determination. The Commission does not
oppose. Intervenor Hydrafacial LLC opposes vacatur, cit-
ing potential collateral consequences on proceedings before
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
“After a case (including an appeal) has been initiated,
it becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Con-
troversy’ for purposes of Article III—when the issues pre-
sented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.” Oman Fasteners, LLC
v. United States, 125 F.4th 1068, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
(cleaned up). In section 337 cases, this requirement gener-
ally means that an appeal is moot once the asserted patents
have expired because the Commission can only grant pro-
spective relief. See INVT SPE LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
46 F.4th 1361, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (collecting cases).
In such situations, where mootness is due entirely to hap-
penstance—as opposed to circumstances attributable to
the parties—we have routinely vacated the Commission’s
underlying final determination. See id. at 1370.
We see no sound basis to depart from that approach
here. We have repeatedly rejected the argument that “the
potential for collateral consequences resulting from the
possible stare decisis effect of our decision” on appeal pre-
cludes mootness of appeals from the Commission involving
an expired patent. Hyosung TNS Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 926 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Tandon
Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir.
1987. Hydrafacial points to nothing concrete in the ongo-
ing PTO proceedings that might suggest otherwise. It
notes that the Director deinstituted review of the same pa-
tent in light of the Commission’s final determination and
Case: 26-1582 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

CARTESSA AESTHETICS , LLC v. ITC 3
efficiency concerns1 and has more recently initiated Direc-
tor review to decide whether to do the same in two matters
involving related patents. But even if the Commission’s
decision could serve Hydrafacial some useful benefit in
such review, we cannot say such possible, indirect benefit
based on independent actions by a non-party defeats moot-
ness here.2
Accordingly,
1 Sinclair Pharma Ltd. v. Hydrafacial LLC, No.
IPR2025-00145 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2026) (deinstituting re-
view because maintaining such proceedings “when the ITC
has determined that Patent Owner established commercial
success and that the claims are not invalid based on the
same prior art and combinations asserted in this IPR
would result in significant duplication of effort, additional
expense for the parties, and risk of inconsistent decisions”).
2 The cases cited by Hydrafacial in which mootness
was rejected are clearly inapposite. The jurisdictional de-
termination in Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United
States over an importer’s challenge to an evasion determi-
nation rested on the fact that such determination exposed
the importer to potential civil penalties. 75 F.4th 1250
(Fed. Cir. 2023). The same cannot be said here. In Super
Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, the Supreme Court in-
voked the exception to the mootness doctrine for a contro-
versy that is capable of repetition, yet evading review; not
collateral consequences. 416 U.S. 115, 126–27 (1974). And
in F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 255
(2012), the Court merely found the Commission’s assur-
ance that it would not impose sanctions on the broadcaster
insufficient to remedy an unconstitutional policy.
Case: 26-1582 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

CARTESSA AESTHETICS , LLC v. ITC 4
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The motions are granted. Appeal No. 2026-1582
and Appeal No. 2026-1881 are consolidated, and the re-
vised official caption is reflected in this order. The appeals
are dismissed as moot, the Commission’s final determina-
tion is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Commis-
sion with instructions to dismiss the investigation as moot.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
July 23, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1582 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 4 of 4 --