ITC Vacates Hydrodermabrasion Section 337 Ruling

ITC Investigation 337-TA-1408 no longer supports an active import remedy against the hydrodermabrasion products at issue. The patent expired, the final determination was vacated, and the investigation was dismissed as moot, but importers and customs brokers still need disciplined exclusion-order screening before treating related merchandise as unrestricted.

What the Vacatur Means for Hydrodermabrasion Imports

No Active Remedy From the Vacated Determination

The U.S. International Trade Commission's final determination against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC has been vacated, and Investigation No. 337-TA-1408 has been terminated as moot. As a result, the determination cannot serve as the basis for an active limited exclusion order or cease-and-desist order covering the products previously at issue.

That outcome is operationally significant. Section 337 remedies can affect admissibility independently of ordinary tariff classification, valuation, country-of-origin marking, and duty payment requirements. When an exclusion order is active, U.S. Customs and Border Protection may deny entry to covered merchandise even if the importer has otherwise submitted a complete entry package and offered the correct duties.

The vacatur removes that specific enforcement concern from the final determination in 337-TA-1408. It does not, however, create a general authorization to import every hydrodermabrasion system or component. Importers must continue to assess whether another ITC exclusion order, consent order, seizure history, or product-specific restriction applies.

Vacatur Is Not a Finding of Noninfringement

A vacated determination generally has no continuing operative effect as a final agency merits decision. That is different from an affirmative ruling that the accused products did not infringe or that the patent was invalid.

The investigation became moot because the asserted patent expired and the associated remedial orders were no longer effective by their terms. The Federal Circuit therefore directed dismissal rather than resolving every underlying infringement issue. Trade compliance teams should describe the result precisely in internal records, broker instructions, and entry-planning memoranda. The correct conclusion is that no active Section 337 remedy remains from the vacated final determination, not that all intellectual property risk involving the products has disappeared.

How Patent Expiration Changed the Section 337 Case

The Investigation and Initial Violation Finding

The ITC instituted the hydrodermabrasion investigation on July 17, 2024, following a complaint by HydraFacial LLC, formerly known as Edge Systems LLC. The complaint alleged infringement of claims from U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287 by imported hydrodermabrasion systems and components.

Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC and Eunsung Global Corp. were named as respondents. Eunsung was later terminated from the investigation based on a consent order. On March 23, 2026, the Commission issued a final determination finding a violation by Cartessa concerning the asserted patent claims.

The Commission suspended enforcement of its remedial orders because the patent was scheduled to expire on March 29, 2026, during the 60-day Presidential review period. Patent expiration was therefore not a remote future event. It directly affected whether the prospective import remedies could have any practical duration.

Mootness During the Appeal

Cartessa appealed the final determination. While the appeal remained pending, the patent expired and the remedial orders ceased to have effect under their own terms. Cartessa then sought dismissal of the appeal as moot and vacatur of the Commission's opinion.

On July 23, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated the final determination and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the investigation as moot. The mandate issued on September 15, 2026, and the Commission subsequently completed the termination process.

This sequence illustrates a central feature of Section 337 practice. ITC remedies are generally prospective and focused on imports. When the intellectual property right supporting a remedy expires, there may be no remaining effective relief for the Commission to administer. Separate litigation can still present different questions, including potential claims tied to conduct before patent expiration. The parallel district court case involving HydraFacial and Cartessa therefore should not be treated as automatically resolved by the ITC vacatur.

Compliance Steps for Importers and Customs Brokers

Verify the Status Before Planning Entries

Importers of hydrodermabrasion systems and components should document that the final determination in 337-TA-1408 was vacated and that no active remedial order remains from that determination. The file should identify the products reviewed, the parties involved, the relevant patent, and the date on which the legal status was confirmed.

Customs brokers should avoid relying solely on an old exclusion-order alert, product description, or prior shipment instruction. Section 337 matters can change during Commission review, Presidential review, appellate proceedings, and remand. Current status should generally be checked through the ITC docket and applicable CBP communications before an entry strategy is finalized.

Screen for Other Exclusion Orders

The absence of an active remedy in one investigation does not eliminate the need for broader screening. Similar equipment may incorporate pumps, handpieces, software, cartridges, tips, fluid-delivery components, or other technologies implicated by unrelated intellectual property rights.

A practical screening process should compare the merchandise, model numbers, technical specifications, manufacturer, exporter, and supply chain against other active ITC orders. Importers should also determine whether an order is limited to named respondents or applies more broadly to covered articles regardless of source. When product coverage is unclear, legal review or an appropriate ruling process may be necessary.

Keep Drawback Analysis Separate

Exclusion-order compliance and duty drawback are distinct issues. An exclusion order determines whether covered merchandise may enter the United States. Duty drawback generally concerns the potential refund of eligible duties, taxes, and fees after qualifying exportation or destruction.

The expiration or vacatur of an exclusion order does not itself establish drawback eligibility. Conversely, potential drawback treatment does not cure an admissibility problem. Importers should first confirm that merchandise may lawfully enter, then evaluate classification, duty liability, recordkeeping, export activity, and the applicable drawback framework. Keeping these analyses separate helps prevent intellectual property conclusions from being incorrectly carried into customs refund decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is There Still an Active Exclusion Order From 337-TA-1408?

No active exclusion remedy remains from the vacated final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1408. The asserted patent expired, the associated remedial orders ceased to operate, and the Federal Circuit directed that the final determination be vacated and the investigation dismissed as moot.

Can Hydrodermabrasion Systems Now Be Imported Without Screening?

No. Importers should still screen products against other active ITC exclusion orders and applicable CBP restrictions. The termination of one investigation does not establish that every hydrodermabrasion system, component, accessory, or replacement part is free from separate intellectual property or admissibility concerns.

Does Vacatur Mean Cartessa Was Found Not to Infringe?

Not necessarily. Vacatur based on mootness is procedurally different from a merits determination of noninfringement. The appellate outcome reflects the expiration of the patent and the absence of an effective prospective remedy, rather than a final resolution of every substantive patent question.

Does the ITC Outcome End Related District Court Litigation?

Not automatically. District court litigation can involve different remedies, procedural standards, and time periods. Potential claims involving conduct before patent expiration may remain relevant depending on the pleadings and subsequent court decisions. Importers should monitor litigation separately from ITC and CBP enforcement status.

Does the Vacatur Affect Duty Drawback Eligibility?

The vacatur does not independently create or eliminate duty drawback eligibility. Drawback generally depends on factors such as the imported merchandise, duties paid, exportation or destruction, statutory time limits, and supporting records. Exclusion-order status should be evaluated as an admissibility issue, while drawback should be assessed under its own requirements.

How Stable Software Can Help

Supporting Broker-Led Drawback Programs

The hydrodermabrasion decision reinforces the importance of separating entry admissibility from post-entry refund opportunities. Once merchandise is lawfully entered and the relevant duties are paid, customs brokers and importers can independently evaluate whether later exportation or destruction supports a drawback claim.

DrawbackAI is Stable Software's flat-license duty drawback software for U.S. customs brokers. Brokers can white-label the software for importer clients and file claims under their own filer codes. Stable Software charges a flat software license and never takes a percentage of the refund. Brokers seeking to expand or standardize their drawback services can explore how DrawbackAI fits within a broker-controlled client offering.

Resources