DCT
2:17-cv-00898
Altair Instruments Inc v. Martinni Beauty Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Altair Instruments Inc (California)
- Defendant: Martinni Beauty Inc (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00898, C.D. Cal., 02/03/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Martinni sells and offers to sell the accused products within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Dermacell" microdermabrasion device infringes a patent related to a method and apparatus for skin exfoliation that uses a fixed abrasive tip in conjunction with a vacuum.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns cosmetic dermatology, specifically microdermabrasion devices used to remove outer skin layers to improve skin appearance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the patent-in-suit on October 16, 2014. At that time, the patent was undergoing a reexamination proceeding at the USPTO, which concluded with the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate on July 15, 2015. The complaint asserts that Defendant continued to infringe after receiving notice and after the reexamination concluded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-11-12 | ’739 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-06-05 | ’739 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-10-16 | Plaintiff sent notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2015-07-15 | USPTO concluded reexamination of the ’739 Patent |
| 2017-02-03 | 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 patent has been subject to multiple reexaminations.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art microdermabrasion techniques that use a stream of powdered abrasive materials, like aluminum oxide, to exfoliate the skin ('739 Patent, col. 2:1-15). It identifies a key disadvantage of this approach: the powdered abrasives can be left embedded in the skin, cause irritation, and pose inhalation risks for both the patient and the operator, necessitating protective gear ('739 Patent, col. 2:16-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a microdermabrasion device that avoids loose powders by using a hollow tube with an abrasive material, such as diamond grit, permanently attached to its treatment tip ('739 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:21-25). A vacuum is applied through the tube, which serves a dual purpose: it pulls the skin into "intimate contact" with the fixed abrasive tip to enhance the exfoliation process, and it simultaneously aspirates the removed skin cells into a collection filter ('739 Patent, col. 4:15-24; col. 5:42-48).
- Technical Importance: This design aimed to provide a safer and cleaner microdermabrasion method by eliminating the use of airborne powdered abrasives and their associated health risks and cleanup issues ('739 Patent, col. 3:17-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 16.
- Independent Claim 1 (as amended): A device for removing the epidermis without damaging the dermis, comprising:
- a source of a vacuum
- a tube with a treatment tip having an abrasive material permanently attached
- the treatment tip has one or more openings for applying the vacuum to the skin
- the vacuum causes increased contact between the skin and the abrasive tip and collects the removed epidermis cells
- Independent Claim 9 (as amended): A tubular device for performing microdermabrasion, comprising:
- a tube with a lumen and a first end with an abrasive surface provided by a permanently attached abrasive material
- the first end has one or more openings in the abrasive surface
- a second end for attachment to a vacuum source that provides negative pressure through the openings
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 ('739 Patent, col. 3:19-22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies one or more microdermabrasion devices, including one known as the "Dermacell" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Devices are microdermabrasion devices that Martinni makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports into the United States (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the Dermacell device, instead alleging that it contains "each and every element" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner without providing a detailed claim chart. The following table is constructed based on the elements of the asserted claims and the complaint's general allegation that the Accused Devices meet every limitation.
’739 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as amended) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device for removing the epidermis without damaging the dermis of the skin | The "Dermacell" is a microdermabrasion device. | ¶12 | col. 6:22-24 |
| a source of a vacuum | The "Dermacell" device contains a vacuum source. | ¶12 | col. 4:1-6 |
| a tube with a treatment tip thereon for removing cells comprising the epidermis layer of the skin surface being treated, the treatment tip having an abrasive material permanently attached to an operating end thereof | The "Dermacell" device contains a tube with a treatment tip having a permanently attached abrasive material. | ¶12 | col. 3:21-25 |
| the treatment delivery surface having one or more openings therein for continuously applying the reduced pressure within the tube | The "Dermacell" device's treatment tip has one or more openings to apply a vacuum. | ¶12 | col. 4:15-16 |
| said continuously applied vacuum causing the skin being treated to have an increased area of contact with the abrasive material... the vacuum also functioning to collect epidermis cells of the skin surface being treated | The vacuum in the "Dermacell" device allegedly increases skin contact and collects abraded cells. | ¶12 | col. 5:42-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused "Dermacell" device actually incorporates a "permanently attached" abrasive material, as opposed to, for example, a disposable or user-replaceable tip that might not be considered "permanent." Further, it raises the question of whether the device's vacuum system is designed to perform the dual functions of increasing skin contact and collecting debris as claimed.
- Scope Questions: Given the amendments made during reexamination, the scope of the claims, particularly the phrase "permanently attached," will be a primary focus. The court will need to determine if the specific construction of the "Dermacell" device falls within the scope of the claims as construed in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "abrasive material permanently attached"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art that used loose, powdered abrasives. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on how "permanently attached" is construed and whether the abrasive component of the "Dermacell" device meets that definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation was likely central to the patent's survival during reexamination.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests multiple methods of creating the abrasive surface, including adhering materials like diamond grit with a nickel binder, bonding other abrasive materials, or even "machining the surface" to create a roughened texture ('739 Patent, col. 4:25-43; col. 5:5-9). This could support a construction that encompasses any non-transient, fixed abrasive surface, regardless of the specific manufacturing method.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term implies a durable, non-disposable component integral to the wand itself. However, the specification also discloses an embodiment with a "removable disc" that has an abrasive end, which could be interchanged or discarded ('739 Patent, col. 5:1-4). This embodiment raises the question of whether "permanently attached" refers to the attachment of the abrasive grit to the tip's substrate, rather than the attachment of the tip itself to the wand.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges liability for contributory and induced infringement, stating that "Users of the Accused Device also infringe the '739 patent" (Compl. ¶12, 22). The basis for inducement appears to be the act of selling the "Dermacell" device to end-users with the knowledge and intent that they will use it in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on pre-suit notice. The complaint states that Defendant was sent a copy of the '739 patent on October 16, 2014, and that it continued to infringe even after this notice and after the USPTO issued a Reexamination Certificate for the patent (Compl. ¶10, 13, 14; p.4 ¶1-2).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and factual application: What is the precise scope of the limitation "abrasive material permanently attached," as amended during reexamination, and does the specific configuration of the accused "Dermacell" device's abrasive surface fall within that scope?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functionality: What evidence demonstrates that the vacuum in the "Dermacell" device performs the dual functions required by Claim 1—both increasing the contact area between the skin and the tip, and collecting the abraded cells?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: Did the Defendant's alleged continuation of sales after receiving a notice letter in 2014, and after the conclusion of a patent reexamination in 2015, constitute willful, wanton, and deliberate infringement sufficient to justify enhanced damages?