Federal Circuit Says Expired Patent Warrants Vacatur of ITC Determination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday granted motions to dismiss as moot two appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in which the ITC found Cartessa Aesthetics LLC violated Section 337 via infringement of Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was about to expire. The CAFC also vacated the underlying ITC determination.

Hydrafacial intervened to oppose vacatur of the determination, arguing that it could have “potential collateral consequences on proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office” (USPTO). In Sinclair Pharma Ltd. v. Hydrafacial LLC, No. IPR2025-00145 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2026), USPTO Director John Squires sua sponte deinstituted review of Hydrafacial’s patent considering that “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,” and therefore institution “would result in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and risk of inconsistent decisions.”

The CAFC explained that Hydrafacial failed to cite anything “concrete” in the USPTO proceedings that would cause the court to depart from its traditional approach of vacating ITC determinations “where mootness is due entirely to happenstance—as opposed to circumstances attributable to the parties.” The per curiam decision continued:

“We have repeatedly rejected the argument that ‘the potential for collateral consequences resulting from the possible stare decisis effect of our decision’ on appeal precludes mootness of appeals from the Commission involving an expired patent.”

While Hydrafacial cited several cases to support its position, the CAFC said they were “inapposite.” In Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States, the determination was remanded with instructions to allow Royal Brush a rebuttal because it exposed the importer to potential civil penalties. In Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, “the Supreme Court invoked the exception to the mootness doctrine for a controversy that is capable of repetition, yet evading review; not collateral consequences.” And in F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., “the Court merely found the Commission’s assurance that it would not impose sanctions on the broadcaster insufficient to remedy an unconstitutional policy.”

The CAFC thus dismissed the appeals as moot, vacated the Commission’s final determination and remanded to the ITC with instructions to dismiss the Section 337 investigation as moot.