Altair Instruments Inc v. Trophy Skin Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Altair Instruments, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Trophy Skin, Inc. (Texas), et al.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:16-cv-05734, C.D. Cal., 08/02/2016
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants sell, have sold, or offer to sell the accused products within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ line of microdermabrasion devices infringes a patent related to a skin treatment tool that uses a permanently attached abrasive tip in conjunction with a vacuum source.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of cosmetic and dermatological devices, specifically personal microdermabrasion tools for skin exfoliation and resurfacing.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739, has undergone two separate ex parte reexamination proceedings, resulting in the issuance of Reexamination Certificates in 2007 and 2015. These proceedings amended the scope of the asserted claims. Plaintiff alleges it provided defendant Trophy Skin with notice of the patent on October 16, 2014, while a reexamination was ongoing.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-11-12	U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2001-06-05	U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 Issue Date
2007-12-11	U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2014-10-16	Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant Trophy Skin
2015-07-15	U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued
2016-08-02	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 - Microdermabrasion Device And Method Of Treating The Skin Surface

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739, Microdermabrasion Device And Method Of Treating The Skin Surface, issued June 5, 2001.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art microdermabrasion techniques that used a stream of powdered abrasive materials, such as aluminum oxide, propelled against the skin. This approach created potential disadvantages, including the possibility of abrasive particles becoming lodged in the skin or being inhaled by patients and operators, which could cause irritation or injury ('739 Patent, col. 2:17-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device that avoids loose powders by using a hollow tube, or wand, with an abrasive material permanently attached to its treatment tip ('739 Patent, Abstract). A vacuum is applied through an opening in the abrasive tip, which serves two functions: it pulls the target skin into firm, intimate contact with the abrasive surface for effective exfoliation, and it aspirates the removed skin cells into a collection filter ('739 Patent, col. 2:39-46; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This design offered a method for mechanical skin exfoliation that eliminated the potential health and safety concerns associated with the free-flowing abrasive particles used in prior systems ('739 Patent, col. 3:17-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 16, as amended by the second Reexamination Certificate issued July 15, 2015 (Compl. ¶22).
• Independent Claim 1 (Device): The essential elements are:
  • A source of a vacuum.
  • A tube with a treatment tip for removing the epidermis without damaging the dermis.
  • An abrasive material permanently attached to the tip's operating end.
  • The tip has at least one opening to apply the vacuum.
  • The vacuum causes increased contact between the skin and the abrasive tip and collects the removed epidermal cells.
• Independent Claim 12 (Method): The essential elements are:
  • Providing a tubular tool with a skin-contacting surface having permanently attached abrasive material.
  • The surface is non-rotational during use.
  • Providing a pressure less than ambient through one or more holes in the tool's end.
  • Bringing the abrasive surface into contact with skin while applying the vacuum.
  • Moving the tool across the skin to remove epidermal cells without injuring the dermis.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "MicrodermMD," "RejuvadermMD," and "MiniMD" devices as the Accused Devices (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the Accused Devices as "microdermabrasion devices" that are made, used, sold, or imported by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶6-7).
• The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical operation, construction, or materials of the Accused Devices. The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the devices possess all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Devices infringe the asserted claims but does not provide a claim chart or a detailed narrative mapping specific product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶22). The analysis of infringement is therefore based on the conclusory allegations in the pleading. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "permanently attached," a limitation present in all asserted independent claims. The question will be whether the abrasive tips on the Accused Devices meet this limitation as it is defined by the patent and its prosecution history. The patent specification discusses both adhering diamond grit via plating and using a "removable disc" with an abrasive end, which may create an interpretive ambiguity for the court to resolve ('739 Patent, col. 4:25-31, col. 5:1-4).
  • Technical Questions: Claims 1 and 12 include negative limitations requiring the removal of epidermal cells "without damaging the dermis" and "without injuring the dermis," respectively. A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Accused Devices, during their normal operation, meet this requirement. This functional limitation may require extensive expert testimony on dermatological effects.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "permanently attached"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all asserted independent claims and was a focus of the patent's reexamination proceedings. It is the core feature distinguishing the invention from prior art that used loose, flowing abrasive powders. The construction of this term will likely be case-dispositive.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment with a "removable disc" sized to fit over the end of the treatment tube, which can be "interchanged" and "discarded" ('739 Patent, col. 4:66–col. 5:4). Parties arguing for a broader scope may contend that "permanently attached" refers to the abrasive particles being fixed to the tip surface, even if the tip itself is user-replaceable.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes an embodiment where "diamond grit" is "adhered to the end of a metal tube by a plating process" ('739 Patent, col. 4:25-28). This language may support a narrower construction where the abrasive surface is integral to the wand and not intended to be removed or replaced by the user.

• The Term: "without damaging the dermis" / "without injuring the dermis"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation, found in device claim 1 and method claim 12, defines a required outcome of using the invention. Proving that an accused device achieves this result is essential for the plaintiff's infringement case.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this term describes the intended function under normal use conditions, not an absolute guarantee against injury under all possible circumstances.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly notes that if abrasive particles are "to large the dermis can be damaged" ('739 Patent, col. 4:37-38). This suggests the invention was specifically designed to avoid such damage, which could support a stricter interpretation where any operation that risks or causes dermal injury falls outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of contributory and induced infringement, asserting that "Users of the Accused Devices also infringe the '739 patent" (Compl. ¶¶11-12, ¶14). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support these allegations, such as referencing instructional materials or user manuals that might direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the '739 patent. The complaint specifically alleges pre-suit knowledge for defendant Trophy Skin, based on a letter sent on October 16, 2014 (Compl. ¶23). For all defendants, the filing of the lawsuit itself establishes post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶24).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court, informed by the patent’s two reexamination histories, define the term "permanently attached"? Whether this term encompasses user-replaceable abrasive tips or is limited to tips that are integral and non-removable from the wand will be a central point of legal argument.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: can the plaintiff prove that the accused devices operate "without damaging the dermis," as required by the negative limitations in claims 1 and 12? The defense will likely focus on whether this functional outcome is consistently achieved, presenting a significant factual hurdle for the infringement case.