Altair Instruments Inc v. Shanika Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Altair Instruments, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Shanika, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00942, C.D. Cal., 02/06/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant's residence, principal place of business, and its sale or offering for sale of the accused products within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of microdermabrasion devices infringes a patent related to a skin abrasion tool that uses a vacuum and a wand with a permanently affixed abrasive tip.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to cosmetic dermatology devices used for microdermabrasion, a procedure that mechanically exfoliates the outer layer of skin to improve its appearance.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit has undergone two separate ex parte reexaminations. These proceedings resulted in amendments that narrowed the scope of the asserted claims, notably by adding limitations requiring the abrasive material to be "permanently attached" and specifying that the procedure removes "the epidermis without damaging the dermis." These amendments, made to distinguish the invention from prior art, will likely be central to claim construction.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-11-12	’739 Patent Priority Date
2001-06-05	’739 Patent Issue Date
2007-12-11	’739 Patent Reexamination C1 Issued
2015-07-15	’739 Patent Reexamination C2 Issued
2017-02-06	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

• Issued: June 5, 2001

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art microdermabrasion techniques that used a stream of loose, powdered abrasive particles (e.g., aluminum oxide) to abrade the skin (’739 Patent, col. 2:1-15). The patent identifies a key problem with this approach: the powdered materials could be inhaled by the practitioner or patient and residual particles could be left embedded in the skin, potentially causing irritation or other undesirable side effects (’739 Patent, col. 1:11-15; 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, col. 1:38-42). A vacuum is applied through the tube, which serves a dual function: it suctions away the abraded skin cells for collection in a filter and also pulls the patient's skin into "intimate contact" with the fixed abrasive tip, which is described as increasing the effectiveness of the abrasion process (’739 Patent, col. 1:42-46; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This design aimed to provide the therapeutic benefits of microdermabrasion while mitigating the potential health and safety risks associated with airborne or embedded abrasive powders (’739 Patent, col. 3:17-21).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 16, among other dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

• 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 tube is attached to the vacuum, creating a reduced pressure in its lumen;
  • the tip has one or more openings for continuously applying the vacuum to the skin;
  • the vacuum increases the contact area between the skin and the abrasive tip and collects the removed epidermis cells.

• Independent Claim 9 (as amended): A tubular device for microdermabrasion of a skin surface to remove the epidermis without damaging the dermis, comprising:

  • a tube with a lumen;
  • a first end with an abrasive surface provided by a permanently attached abrasive material;
  • the first end has one or more openings;
  • a second end for attachment to a vacuum source;
  • the vacuum continuously provides negative pressure, causing increased contact between the skin and the abrasive surface.

The complaint also asserts infringement of independent method claim 12 and independent apparatus claim 16, as well as a number of dependent claims, and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a line of at least twelve different products, including the "Diamond Micro Dermabrasion" (CIB-6000), "Portable Diamond Microdermabrasion w/Oxygen" (CM-4033), and "Crystal & Diamond Micro Dermabrasion & Hot Towel Cabinet" (CM-2056), collectively referred to as the "Accused Devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Devices are "microdermabrasion devices" that the Defendant "makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports into the United States" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the Accused Devices, their construction, or the nature of their abrasive tips (e.g., whether they are permanently bonded or disposable).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or map specific features of the Accused Devices to the elements of the asserted claims. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the Accused Devices "contain each and every element" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶11). Without more detailed allegations, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely concern the scope of the term "permanently attached," which was added during reexamination. The question will be whether this term, as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the abrasive tips of the Accused Devices, particularly if they are found to be user-replaceable or disposable.
  • Technical Questions: The reexaminations also added the functional limitation that the device removes "the epidermis without damaging the dermis." A key question will be what evidence the Plaintiff can provide to demonstrate that the Accused Devices perform this specific function and, conversely, whether evidence that the devices can damage the dermis under certain conditions would place them outside the scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"abrasive material permanently attached" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation was added during reexamination to distinguish the invention from prior art that used loose, flowing abrasive powders. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the Accused Devices utilize disposable or user-replaceable tips, the outcome of the case could turn on whether "permanently attached" is construed to cover such designs.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term was intended to mean only that the abrasive is fixed to the tip during use, as opposed to being a loose powder. The specification's primary objective is to solve the problems of "powdered abrasive materials" (’739 Patent, col. 1:11-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term implies a non-disposable, durable bond lasting the life of the tool. The specification describes an alternative embodiment as a "single use or single patient tube which is made of plastic," which could suggest the primary embodiment is not single-use (’739 Patent, col. 4:58-62). Furthermore, the description of a "stainless steel/diamond tool" may imply durability and permanence (’739 Patent, col. 4:55-58).

"remov[es] the epidermis without damaging the dermis" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This functional language was added during the second reexamination and defines the specific result of using the claimed device. Its interpretation is crucial because it sets a standard for the device's operation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue this describes the intended and proper operation of the device for a standard microdermabrasion procedure. The patent's "Description of the Prior Art" notes that the goal is to be "accomplished without injuring the lower two layers, namely, the dermis and the subcutaneous layer" (’739 Patent, col. 1:20-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may contend this is a strict operational limit. If an accused device is capable of, or is marketed for, more aggressive treatments that risk damaging the dermis, it could be argued that it does not meet this limitation. The language could also be challenged as indefinite if the boundary between damaging and not damaging the dermis is unclear.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges liability for contributory and induced infringement but does so in a conclusory fashion, without pleading specific facts such as the existence or content of user manuals that might instruct users to infringe (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an "exceptional case" but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for willful infringement, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct (Compl., p. 4, ¶d).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "permanently attached," added during reexamination to distinguish the invention from loose-powder systems, be construed to cover the potentially disposable or user-replaceable abrasive tips common in modern commercial devices?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: how will the parties prove or disprove that the accused devices meet the claim limitation of removing "the epidermis without damaging the dermis"? The case may turn on whether this is interpreted as a limitation on the device's intended purpose and normal operation or as a strict technical constraint that the device must never violate.
• An initial procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, an early focus may be on whether the plaintiff can substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence to withstand a potential motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.