skinmedica tns advanced+ serum lawsuit

Histogen's claim for injunctive relief under the UCL survives, as such relief is not dependent upon the right to seek restitution. or used or held for use in. . Given that Histogen's own operative answer, as well as its damages expert's description, uses the term "profits" repeatedly to describe the relief sought by Histogen under its unfair competition claims, the Court will not fault SkinMedica for mirroring that language in styling its motion caption. 1997). these patent limitations are not imported to SkinMedica's trade secrets claims. SkinMedica admits that lost profits damages are available under a common law unfair competition claim, but argues that Histogen cannot recover under this claim because it has not alleged "passing off." App. (ECF No. Code 3426.1(d): see also Courtesy Temp. A trade secret requires proof of independent economic value derived from not being generally known. For the same reasons, and to avoid inequity, the Court also declines to reject Histogen's motion as to SkinMedica's breach of contract claim as successive. 1250-51 (N.D. Cal. Histogen also provides what it deems "controlling undisputed evidence" . According to Histogen. Serv., Inc. v. Leonel Camacho. Gail Naughton states that "Histogen board members and other SAB members made many inquiries regarding why Dr. Draelos resigned from Histogen." ""Material." Histogen argues it has not misappropriated the Bioreactor Method or Concentration System trade secrets because it does not use several of the claimed elements. February 2015: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making similar allegations (i.e., that the company allegedly fails to adequately disclose important information about TNS products, including health and safety concerns associated with the ingredients in the products and the composition of the products). In California, "information can be a trade secret even though it is readily ascertainable, so long as it has not yet been ascertained by others in the industry." But the determination of secrecy under the UTSA is not the same as the PTO's decision whether an invention is obvious in view of the prior art, and it does not follow as a matter of law that something rejected by the PTO as obvious can never be part of a protectable trade secret. See 02 Micro, 420 F. Supp. For these reasons, the Court finds Histogen has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to its common law unfair competition claim. (Id.). ('494 patent, col. 31:8. (a) The Alleged Trade Secrets. App. Amaretto Ranch Breedables. Cir. 3, ECF No. 235 Cal. Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 435 (1956)). 's MSJ 11-12. 4th 163. Nov. 16. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. while restitution is merely "ancillary."' 's MSJ Ex. The nonmoving party cannot oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by "rest[ing] on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings." (Def. as a "prophetic disclosure." at Ex. at 10.) Celotex. It does not matter if a portion of the trade secret is generally known, or even that every individual portion of the trade secret is generally known, as long as the combination of all such information is not generally known.") This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Judge Whelan found that, although SkinMedica has not provided a Proprietary Agreement signed by Dr. Naughton. App. Among SkinMedica's products is its TNS (for Tissue Nutrient System) line of anti-aging products. This impact took two primary forms. Id. Gail Naughton responded that] conclusion which she believed was novel and potentially valuable. 's MSJ 15.) LEXIS 133642 at *37-43 (N.D. Cal. 2010 Order denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to SkinMedica's breach of contract claim. Disinfecting Co. v. Lomkin. S.B.C.C., Inc., 155 Cal. (Pl. 's MSJ 5. related to NouriCel through an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA"). Rather, in Beaumont, the proper measure of restitution was the identifiable diminution in value of certain tenants' vested leasehold interests. 2006); see also Uniram Tech., Inc. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. 322 (1986). (2) Secrecy. Please see our Privacy Policy. However. In order to hear an appeal of a ruling from this Court under the patent statue, the Federal Circuit must determine if the appeal is of a final judgment or whether there is some other basis for jurisdiction over an interlocutory order. ), SkinMedica claims that ATS developed "methodology for producing conditioned media having a high count of growth factors (e.g., NouriCel) by (ARI at 4.) (Id.) B.) In Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. First, it must determine whether the judgment is final in the sense that it is an "ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action." Counsel may confer and submit one joint statement clearly indicating any portions of the Order they seek to have redacted by April 20. Cel-Tech is not inapposite of Bank of the West or Sybersound Records. "The question is whether the information has retained its value to the creator in spite any disclosure." 's MSJ Ex. This method "resulted from multiple experiments that were explored over approximately twenty-one months with the use of extensive resources that were devoted by ATS to this project." California courts have found that injunctions are the proper remedy to combat unfair business practices, and that "'[a]ctual direct victims of unfair competition may obtain restitution as well." 's MSJ 23.) By September 2002. (Id. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Cal. 's MSJ 21.) Code 3426.1). in the middle of this ongoing litigation. (Def. (Naughton Dep. ATS and its affiliates retained all of their right, title and interest to the "Excluded Assets, consisting of "any Intellectual Property which is not directly related to. LLC v. Ozimals. 2011 MSJ Order 12-14, ECF No. United States District Judge Copy only: Counsel for Plaintiff/counterdefendant SkinMedica Counsel for Defendants/counterclaimants Histogen and Gail K. Naughton (See Protective Order 3. SkinMedica admits, and the Court agrees, that Histogen's UCL claim will survive, regardless of the Court's ruling on SkinMedica's summary judgment motion. To subscribe, contact your LexisNexis account representative, visit the LexisNexis Store, email lexislegalnews@lexisnexis.com or call 800.223.1940. (Def. The initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact falls on the moving party. The '494 patent application states that the conditioned media compositions may be fomulated for topical applications using an agent that facilitates penetration of the compound into the skin, for example. 's MSJ 11.) a declaration from Matthew Croughan attesting that, in his expert opinion, the NouriCel conditioned medium lacks value because it contains Wnt5a, . See. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317. Thus, the question before the Court is whether the three asserted trade secrets fall within that scope. (Fees Motion 16-17.) Doing so places you under no obligations and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. App. (Id.) (See Def. 's Opp'n to Def. I use their products for exfoliation and the retinol. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). For a dispute to be "genuine." The cases it cites, including Balboa Ins. Histogen's argument conflates two separate and independent inquiries: the use intellectual property is held for (only relevant here because of the terms of the APA). 1994) (finding that compensation for a lost business opportunity is a measure of damages and not restitution to the alleged victims under the UCL). 's MSJ 10.) SkinMedica's memorandum clearly provides adequate notice of the three different bases asserted for summary judgment, which are not directed solely to "lost profits." Ex. 20.) Thus, establishing that most (or even all) of the elements are generally known does not foreclose the possibility that the eight steps, taken together, constitute a protectable trade secret. The movant can carry his burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party "failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof." I use skin medica recovery complex twice a day and see great results. SkinMedica points out that "damages" of any sort are not recoverable under the UCL. And district courts in California have followed Sybersound in limiting common law unfair competition to allegations of "passing off" or analogous acts. Justice Kennard began a discussion of the UCL claim by examining the history of unfair competition in general, starting with common law. 2009) (court entered final judgment as to all patent-related claims under 54(b) where state law claims remained). LEXIS 110425 at *26 (CD. Cal. SkinMedica and its parent company Allergan Inc. are the defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed by consumers claiming that the company has misbranded and mismarketed its line of Tissue Nutrient Solution (TNS) products as cosmeceuticals rather drug products. 1999) (explaining that California law differs on this point from both the UTSA and patent law. 2006 WL 3317733 at *6-7 (Ct. Cal. LEXIS 119462 at *8 (CD. Here. Thus, the disgorgement in that case was a proper restitutionary remedy under the UCL. 's MSJ 22-25): see also Cacique, Inc. v. Robert Reiser & Co., Inc., 169 F.3d 619, 623 (9th Cir. Corp., 154 Cal. (Id. 4th 1528 (2007). (FAC Exs. the court must make two determinations. And regardless of whether a patent application is accepted or rejected, a plaintiff may certainly have a viable trade secret claim where the "implementation details and techniques" or other elements of the trade secret go beyond what was disclosed in the patent. App. Should I stop use or is it only the TNS that is a problem? Although the remedy came in the form of disgorgement, the court found it was a "carefully crafted restitution remedy . 2008). at 1.) 267.) They wete recommended and purchased at a very reputable plastic surgeon. (See FAC 8-10.) In support of this contention. (Id.) 1044 (N.D. Cal. 46 Cal. and controlling plant access." 3. 's Opp'n to Pl. In addition, the Court DENIES Histogen's motion for summary judgment. : see also MAI Sys. 1989. 1357 (Fed. Histogen asserts that all eight of the elements of the Bioreactor Method are either generally known, not misappropriated by Histogen. 2011. the Court granted Histogen's motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement of both the '494 and the '746 patents. LEXIS 129822 (S.D. 02 Micro Intern. Id. 699 (Fed. First, it allegedly caused Histogen's "existing and prospective funding sources to decline to fund Histogen" or to "modify the manner in which they fund and interact" with Histogen to its detriment. (FJ Motion. This claim is a separate one. 1998) (finding that "reliance on the [patent] prosecution history and the prior art submitted to the PTO is misplaced" in upholding a jury verdict of trade secret misappropriation). ), Defendant Gail Naughton was the co-founder. When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must view all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. However, as with the Concentration System. The main ingredient in the TNS line of products is NouriCel. 15-19. In full. 538. 's Opp'n to Def. (Fees Motion 1, ECF No. Cir. Beaumont did not. 2d 773. Cir. See, e.g., Neothermia Corp. v. Rubicor Medical. the Ninth Circuit quoted from the above-excerpted language in Bank of the West in affirming the district court's dismissal of a claim under California common law unfair competition law because the plaintiff had "not alleged that the [defendants] have passed off their goods as those of another nor that they exploit trade names or trademarks . A party's identification of its trade secret is sufficient where the identification "clearly refer[s] to trade secret material." See Chambers v. Nasco. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License 2022 Online Legal Media. at 16) (citing Leminh Deck 14-24.) Beginning in 2004. 4th 864. Inc. v. TEA Sys. (citing Legis. The Court accordingly DENIES SkinMedica's motion for final judgment as to noninfringement. SkinMedica disagrees, stating that it acquired through the APA all intellectual property relating to developing, manufacturing, marketing and selling the NouriCel product, and that Histogen's product is a "knock-off" of NouriCel. CC. and applied as a topical application for stimulating hair growth." . not that of the regional circuit from which the case arose. 3d 382 (1978). Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Id. 's MSJ 13. 20 Cal. Corporate & Professional 3d 1.21 (1991). to Interrog. Cal. See Cal. 2004) (stating there was "no real dispute that [the plaintiff) has in fact identified its trade secrets with reasonable particularity" by way of interrogatory responses and declarations.") See. June 2014: SkinMedica, Inc. moved to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against it. (See March 29. Corp. v. Malvern Inst. SkinMedica argues that ATS had not done any testing of the use of conditioned media to stimulate hair growth prior to filing the '494 patent, and that the idea was included in the patent application, according to Dr. Naughton. All U.S. at 324. restitution means the return of money to those persons from whom it was taken or who had an ownership interest in it." 29.) Cal. Histogen seemingly ignores this "combination" argument, instead focusing on the lack of misappropriation in its reply. 's Opp'n to Pl. It must be left to the jury to conclude whether Histogen obtained SkinMedica's protected trade secret information by proper means because that information was readily ascertainable. The first was an employment agreement between Dr. Naughton and Marrow-Tech Incorporated, the predecessor company to ATS. 2003) (granting summary judgment as to damages but denying summary judgment as to several prongs under section 17200). LLC, 134 Cal. The Court declines to reject SkinMedica's motion on the basis that it is successive of a summary judgment motion filed on September 14.2009. Bus. Law Firm (Def. 8 20.) G.)) (Am. N.A. 1984) ("[Al party may not use another's trade secret even with independent improvements or modifications so long as the product or process is substantially derived from the trade secret.")) 43 (1991). 1995). 2000. and August, 2002. Id. 2001). 's Opp'n to Def. (Pl. which includes intellectual property, contracts, books and records, inventory, product data, purchased equipment, and claims. ; ECF No. Nat'l Rural Telecomm., 319 F. Supp. (Id. 50 (1992). In the alternative. 2d 431 (I960), and Muranaka Farm. When asked what conclusions she drew from reading the report. Histogen. President. and I do not recall any confidentiality agreement with Merck." ECF No. Courts are authorized to fashion remedies to prevent, deter, and compensate for unfair business practices. 2d at 1091 (noting that "misappropriation of trade secrets is an intentional tort"). Inc. v. The APA gave SkinMedica the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. Cir. Lexis Legal News may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.Youll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. or both. Cal. which does not implicate these concerns with regard to damages. 's Opp'n to Def. SkinMedica does not contest Histogen's argument that the alleged Serum-Free Culture Method trade secret was voluntarily abandoned. Korea Supply Co., 29 Cal. 's Opp'n to Pl. Inc. v. United States, 2006 WL 3618011 at *8-l0 (CD. 's MSJ 13-14. 1334-35 (Fed. ), Finally. SkinMedica filed the instant lawsuit against Naughton. Accordingly, this scattershot attempt to disclaim use of various elements of the claimed trade secrets does not foreclose the possibility that Histogen's process was not substantially derived from the claimed trade secrets, even if it differed in specifics from the process described therein, (e) Reasonable Royalty, Histogen also argues that a reasonable royalty, the only monetary remedy SkinMedica seeks for its trade secret claim, is unavailable as a matter of law under Cal. Defendants. Histogen addresses the Concentration System only briefly, again providing a chart indicating , and that others were not misappropriated. 4th 758 (2010) (quoting In re Tobacco II Cases. 31. 399 F. Supp. I am new to the type of skin care products. Is it not a good product? (Id. I West's Ann. SkinMedica sells its products primarily to dermatologists and plastic surgeons. neither of which requires alternative methods of damages to be unprovable before courts may impose a reasonable royalty). ), NouriCel was originally developed by Advanced Tissue Science. I. and the expert reports of Rod Goodson and Tan Leminh. Click here to login, Enter your details below and select your area(s) of interest to receive newsletters, Password * (at least 8 characters required), Work Setting 77 Cal. Lexis Legal News takes your privacy seriously. LEXIS 25589 at *28 (N.D. Cal. Nystrom, 339 F.3d at 1350. Histogen now moves for summary judgment of the first three of these claims, and for an award of attorneys' fees for its defense of SkinMedica's infringement claims. Inc. ("ATS"). (See Pl. This is not an equitable remedy authorized under [the UCL].'). not common law unfair competition. Bus. TINA.orgs analysis of 1500+ comments shows wide support for reining in earnings claims. Gore. In order to constitute restitution, the victim must have at least an identifiable vested interest in the money he seeks to recover. The Court addresses these arguments in turn. 's MSJ 4-5.) 2007). v. Adaptive Commcn Sys., 1994 WL 449032 at *10 (N.D. Cal. Histogen also alleges all three trade secrets consist of information generally known and thus not secret. Dr. Naughton also presented the Hair Growth Project research to scientists and clinicians at City of Hope, a national cancer center. made the Hair Growth Projectall elements in combinationgenerally known. If Histogen wishes, it may seek leave to amend its UCL claim to specify a form of monetary relief that actually constitutes restitution, consistent with the Court's discussion of restitutionary remedies above. 2011 WL 2690437 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Civ. A. SkinMedica deliberately advanced specious positions in pursuing a patent infringement action against Histogen for the improper purpose of harming its competitor. During her tenure at ATS. Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 2009 U.S. Dist. v. Directv. ), SkinMedica provides the expert report of Rodney Goodson. & Prof. Code 17203. Instead. (See Nov. 21. (Id. Courts have found cases exceptional and awarded such fees where the plaintiff "pursued objectively baseless infringement claims." 4th 1134. at 115.) ECF No. 1231. 6.372,494 (the "494 patent) and 7.118.746 (the '746 patent), asserted in this lawsuit. App. Histogen also seeks an order requiring SkinMedica to pay its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in defending SkinMedica's "blatantly meritless" patent infringement claims. ), Thus, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Hair Growth Product has independent economic value. Get the latest articles from Clinical Leader delivered to your inbox. Histogen counters that common law unfair competition is not limited to classic "passing off." See, e.g., Oracle Corp. v. Druglogic, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. 742 F.2d 314. Histogen does not have an identifiable and vested interest in the money it seeks to recover. See Slulz Motor Car v. Reebok Int 7. A party's "bad faith" or recklessness may support such an award of attorneys' fees as a sanction. According to SkinMedica. Naughton and Histogen began filing patent applications for "conditioned medium" research similar to the NouriCel research Naughton performed at ATS. (Def. In that case, the California Supreme Court dealt with a cause of action under the UCL. Histogen submits the declaration of Gail Naughton, who attests that she learned "in late June 2007. shortly after incorporating Histogen . 446 U.S. at 8. Portions of the motion hearing in this matter were sealed by agreement of the parties, and many of the documents filed by both parties in support of these motions have been filed under seal (for counsel only) pursuant to the Protective Order in this case (ECF No. 2d 938. Since neither the FDA or the California Department of Public Health approved the TNS products for use, nor did SkinMedica disclose the risks associated with the human growth factors contained in the products, the line of products are misbranded according to federal and state law consumer protection laws. Histogen opposes, arguing that the remaining state law claims are factually intertwined with the patent issues, leading to multiple appeals on the same issues and rendering entry of final judgment at cross-purposes with judicial economy. for purposes of Rule 56, means that the fact, under governing substantive law. 2010 Order 9: Gergen Decl. 's Opp'n to Def. Co., 446 U.S. 1.7(1980); see also Fed. 's Croughan Decl. In the context of trade secret misappropriation, information may be improperly "used" in that it is unlawfully acquired and then built upon or modified before being disclosed or benefit derived. (MSJ 15-19, 20.) (Id.) 2003) (quoting Sears. 284.) Id. Inc. v. Bunner, 31 Cal. Dr. Naughton thus believed that Histogen could not commercialize such a product, because (Id.) 's MSJ Ex. 4th 241, 251 (2004)). Further, scientific discovery may be economically valuable even if initial formulations have undesired characteristics. 11. (Id. (Def. 339 F.3d at 1350; Stale Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v. State of Florida, 258 F.3d 1329. 4, 2012). And each side asserts various affirmative defenses to the other's claims. (Id. Discussing information made readily ascertainable by a third-party internet posting, the court in DVD Copy Control clarified that "a trade secret is [not] automatically lost any time it is [published]." (FAC t 10.) 2011). & Prof. Code 17200 ("UCL" or "section 17200"). Civ. See, e.g., Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 440 F.3d 1354. Civ. July 8. See Celerilas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Intern. Naughton presented a confidential report on NouriCel's hair growth potential to ATS's Scientific Advisory Board ("SAB Report"). 's MSJ 13-15.) Thus. Id. Axiomatically. As to elements 1-7 being generally known, even if taken as true, this fact alone is insufficient to establish the claimed trade secret is not protectable. Accordingly, the Court Histogen's motion for summary judgment of SkinMedica's breach of contract claim is DENIED. In fact. ("First Employment Agreement." 's Opp'n to Pl. R. Civ. Histogen submits a report from its damages expert. (Naughton Deck 11.) However, nothing about this language, or anything else stated in that Order, leads to the conclusion advanced by Histogen that this case is exceptional, that SkinMedica's infringement claims were objectively baseless, or that SkinMedica has multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously. Determinations of whether or not Histogen actually produces NouriCel or even to what hypothetical uses NouriCel may be put in the future are irrelevant to the standing inquiry here, which focuses on the purpose of the trade secret as used or held for use by SkinMedica. In Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695. Under the terms of the Second Employment Agreement, Dr. Naughton was obligated to a three-year period of confidentiality after the termination of the agreement, which had a six-year term. Cal. Histogen's statements that the "legal rights SkinMedica acquired are limited to rights far making Nouricel." 's MSJ 22-25.) Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Co., 617 F. Supp. 's MSJ I. ECF No. First, Histogen asserts vaguely that it cannot be held liable because the trade secrets were "readily ascertainable based upon the same proof showing that the information was generally known." 's MSJ 13.) the relief Histogen requests is essentially damages, not the return of money in which it has an identifiable vested property interest. According to Histogen. Consequently. And the fact that Dr. Naughton attempted to patent the information herself, beginning in 2004, casts doubt upon her statement that she believed the information lacked value, even though the PTO rejected those applications. ATS and Dr. Naughton presented the Hair Growth Project research to Merck in a telephonic business development meeting in June. e.g., Design Art v. NFL Props., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. 218 Cal. E, and SAB Report. . (See Pl. Histogen argues that SkinMedica's constructive trust claim must fail because its trade secret claim fails. 14-cv-00420, C. D. Thus, "in the UCL context. Even a single public disclosure of information may defeat trade secret protection. 's MSJ Ex. 2011): see also Nat 7 City Bank. Thus, it remains for the jury to decide the fact-intensive question of whether these patent applications, or the referenced prior art. DVD Copy Control Ass 'n. (Def. Dr. Naughton said "I don't remember the Merck presentation having an NDA or CDA." 4th 612. SkinMedica. The Court interprets SkinMedica's motion as requesting only partial summary judgment of Histogen's requested monetary relief under its UCL claim, not of the injunctive relief sought thereunder. Indus. (Id. These risks were not adequately communicated to consumers, according to the lawsuit. 's Opp'n to FJ Motion. Ltd., 909 F. Supp. Id. 2009. Pl. Contrary to Histogen's assertions, the evidence it has presented is hardly uncontested. 15.) SkinMedica counters that California law states the statute of limitations for breach of contract begins to fun from the date the breach was discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, not from the date of the breach itself, citing Gryczman v. 4550 Pico Partners, Ltd., 107 Cal. In her concurring and dissenting opinion. Nyslrom. According to Histogen. Histogen's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in defending against SkinMedica's patent infringement claims is DENIED without prejudice. "the assertion that a matter is readily ascertainable by proper means remains available as a defense to a claim of misappropriation." In the context of patent litigation in particular, many courts have entered partial final judgment as to some or all patent law issues in order to permit appeal to the Federal Circuit where distinct legal issues remained, even where factually related. By stitching together several of these contract terms, it becomes clear that SkinMedica only acquired rights to the intellectual property "directly related to. 09-CV-122 JLS (RBB) (S.D. but does not even allege that any board members or customers were confused or made any decisions based on a misunderstanding caused by SkinMedica's trading on Histogen's reputation or goodwill. 228.) However, in such a situation, a district court may consider whether there is a proper basis to direct the entry of final judgment on fewer than all of the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Histogen points to the Court's Order granting summary judgment of noninfringement as proof that SkinMedica's opposition was '"objectively baseless" and "legally unsound." Judge Whelan found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Dr. Naughton had also signed a Proprietary Agreement while she was employed at ATS, and whether any breaches of confidentiality occurred during the contractual period governed by the Second Employment Agreement. Any plaintiff who suffered injury to property could claim restitution because the defendant "took away" the value of the property. For more information, consumers can contact Hagens Berman atSkinMedica@hbsslaw.comor 206-623-7292. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Histogen argues that three different public disclosures by ATS each provides an independent basis to defeat the secrecy of the Hair Growth Project: the "494 patent application, and two business meetings held by ATS. Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Scientific Officer at ATS. 's MSJ 10.) SkinMedica provides the technical report prepared for the ATS Scientific Advisory Board ("SAB") detailing these results, which was explicitly marked as "Confidential."

Paper Towel Dispenser Refills, Service Desk Analyst Job Description, Vintage Patchwork Sweatshirt, How To Seal Unicorn Spit On Wood, Diamond Goslin Vanity 36, Salice 3/8 Lipped Door Hinges, Navy Blue Multiway Bridesmaid Dress, Stainless Steel Distiller For Essential Oils, Heirloom Roses Near Lansing, Mi, Custom 2 Birthstone Rings,