Edge Systems LLC v. Aesthetic Skin Systems LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Edge Systems LLC (California) and AXIA MEDSCIENCES, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Aesthetic Skin Systems LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-04597, C.D. Cal., 06/22/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is a California company with a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Aqua Skin Facial" hydradermabrasion system infringes five U.S. patents related to devices and methods for dermatological skin treatment.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is hydradermabrasion, a non-invasive dermatological procedure that combines skin exfoliation, debris extraction, and infusion of therapeutic fluids.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with actual notice of the asserted patents via a letter sent on or about February 1, 2017, approximately four months prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-08-26	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2003-11-04	U.S. Patent No. 6,641,591 Issued
2010-03-16	U.S. Patent No. 7,678,120 Issued
2010-09-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,789,886 Issued
2011-11-29	U.S. Patent No. 8,066,716 Issued
2016-10-18	U.S. Patent No. 9,468,464 Issued
2017-02-01	Plaintiffs allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant
2017-06-22	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,641,591 - INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL LAYERS (’591 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes drawbacks of prior art skin resurfacing techniques, noting that deep treatments like laser ablation involve long recovery times, while superficial treatments like conventional micro-dermabrasion are limited in efficacy and may create health hazards from airborne abrasive particles (Compl. Ex. 1, '591 Patent, col. 1:35-col. 2:43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand-held dermatological instrument that combines three functions into one working end: a vacuum for aspiration, a source for delivering fluids or therapeutic agents to the skin, and a specially shaped "abrading structure" for exfoliating epidermal layers as the device moves across the skin ('591 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:23-34). This combination is designed to allow for simultaneous exfoliation, hydration, and removal of debris in a controlled manner.
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve upon existing microdermabrasion by integrating fluid delivery with mechanical abrasion, which can hydrate the skin to facilitate treatment and deliver therapeutic agents ('591 Patent, col. 8:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a system claim) include:
  • An instrument body with a distal working end defining a skin interface portion.
  • A first aperture arrangement in the skin interface in communication with a treatment media source.
  • A second aperture arrangement in the skin interface in communication with a vacuum source.
  • An abrading structure on the skin interface with "substantially sharp edges" for abrading tissue.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,678,120 - INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL LAYERS (’120 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '591 Patent, this patent addresses the same problems of providing an improved skin resurfacing technique that overcomes the limitations of prior art methods ('120 Patent, col. 1:36-col. 2:44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for abrading skin. The method involves using a treatment device with a specific abrading surface comprised of "apexes extending upwardly" with "sharp edges." The user places the device against the skin, uses vacuum suction to draw the skin against this abrading surface, and moves the device across the skin. The claim specifies that the sharp edges of the apexes remain "stationary with respect to the working end" during this movement to abrade the skin ('120 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This patented method focuses on the specific dynamic interaction between a stationary abrading tip, vacuum-induced skin contact, and movement of the handpiece to achieve controlled exfoliation, distinguishing it from techniques involving rotating or oscillating heads ('120 Patent, col. 7:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a method claim) include:
  • Placing a working end of a device against the skin.
  • Drawing the skin against an abrading surface having "apexes extending upwardly" with "sharp edges" by applying suction.
  • Moving the device across the skin while the sharp edges of the apexes remain stationary relative to the working end.
  • Abrading the skin drawn against the sharp edges while continuously applying suction.
  • Removing skin debris through an aspiration opening.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,789,886 - INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL LAYERS (’886 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for treating skin using a device with a specific tip geometry. The method involves using a working surface where the abrading structure and a vacuum aperture are completely surrounded by a "raised outer periphery" (Compl. ¶51). The user translates the device, and the vacuum causes suction engagement against this raised periphery and the sharp abrading elements inside it ('886 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Accused Features: The use of the Accused Product is alleged to infringe, with the complaint pointing to tips that have a "plurality of sharp elements for abrading skin that is positioned in a raised periphery that completely surrounds the abrading structure" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint includes a labeled diagram of the accused handpiece and tips identifying a "Raised Outer Periphery" and a "Plurality of Abrading Structures" (Compl. p. 12).

U.S. Patent No. 8,066,716 - INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLED REMOVAL OF EPIDERMAL LAYERS (’716 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for skin treatment featuring a handpiece and tips with abrading structures composed of a "plurality of ridge elements." The system includes a vacuum-coupled aperture, and in some embodiments, the ridge elements and the aperture are "entirely surrounded by an outer periphery" (Compl. ¶57).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
• Accused Features: The Accused Product is alleged to be an infringing system because its tips allegedly have "abrading structures, which are made up of a plurality of ridge elements," and an aperture that, on at least some tips, is "entirely surrounded by an outer periphery" (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,468,464 - METHODS FOR TREATING THE SKIN USING VACUUM (’464 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of treating skin where a handheld device's vacuum source serves a dual purpose. The vacuum not only aspirates used media and debris through a first port but also "facilitates the delivery of a liquid treatment media to the surface of the patient's skin through the second port" (Compl. ¶63). The negative pressure is described as puffing up the skin and hydrating subsurface tissue ('464 Patent, Claim 1; Compl. ¶¶63-64).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
• Accused Features: The use of the Accused Product is alleged to infringe because its vacuum source is claimed to facilitate the delivery of liquid treatment media to the skin and puffs up the skin at the treatment site (Compl. ¶¶63-64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Aqua Skin Facial" product (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused Product as a system for treating a patient's skin surface, consisting of a main unit housing fluid and vacuum sources, a handpiece, and a variety of interchangeable tips (Compl. ¶¶29, 30). The complaint alleges the handpiece connects to both the fluid and vacuum sources, and the tips feature "abrading structures with substantially sharp edges" (Compl. ¶¶30, 31). In operation, the device allegedly deposits fluid on the skin while the tip abrades it, and a vacuum creates a seal with the skin to remove resulting debris and spent fluid (Compl. ¶31). The complaint provides a photograph showing examples of the accused tips (Compl. p. 7). The product is allegedly sold to commercial customers, such as medical centers (Compl. ¶32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'591 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(a) an instrument body with a distal working end that defines a skin interface portion for contacting the skin;	The Accused Product's handpiece, when used with one of its tips, allegedly forms a working end that defines a skin interface portion.	¶40	col. 8:40-42
(b) a first aperture arrangement in said skin interface consisting of at least one port in communication with a treatment media source;	The handpiece allegedly has a port that is in communication with a treatment media source housed in the Accused Product.	¶40	col. 8:43-45
(c) a second aperture arrangement in said skin interface consisting of at least one port in communication with a vacuum source...;	The handpiece allegedly has a second port that is in communication with a vacuum source housed in the Accused Product.	¶40	col. 8:46-50
(d) wherein the skin interface comprises an abrading structure with substantially sharp edges for abrading tissue.	The Accused Product can allegedly be used with tips that include a "substantially sharp edge for abrading skin."	¶40	col. 8:51-53

'120 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(b) drawing the skin against an abrading surface... the abrading surface comprising apexes extending upwardly... and the apexes having sharp edges;	The Accused Product's vacuum allegedly draws the patient's skin against a tip that includes "apexes that extend upwardly from an abrading surface, where the apexes have sharp edges."	¶¶45, 46	col. 7:45-50
(c) moving the treatment device across the skin while the sharp edge of the apexes remain stationary with respect to the working end of the skin treatment device;	The operator allegedly moves the handpiece across the skin while the tip remains stationary on the handpiece, causing the edges on the apexes to remain stationary relative to the handpiece.	¶46	col. 7:51-54
(d) abrading the skin drawn against the sharp edge of the apexes while continuously applying suction...;	Continuous suction from the vacuum source allegedly keeps the skin drawn against the sharp edges of the tip's apexes, which abrades the skin as the handpiece is moved.	¶46	col. 7:55-58
(e) removing skin debris through the aspiration opening in the working end of the skin treatment device.	Skin debris resulting from the abrasion is allegedly "drawn through the aperture in the working end of the handpiece by the vacuum source."	p. 11, ¶1	col. 8:1-2

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the '591 Patent, a question may arise as to whether the accused handpiece embodies a "first aperture arrangement" and a "second aperture arrangement" as distinct claim limitations, or if its design merges these functions in a way that falls outside the claim scope.
• Technical Questions: For the '120 Patent, the infringement analysis will depend on factual evidence of whether the accused tips possess "apexes extending upwardly" with "sharp edges," as opposed to a different type of abrasive surface. The meaning of "apexes" will be critical. Further, the method step of moving the device while the apexes remain "stationary" relative to the handpiece will require evidence of how the device is actually used and how the tip is affixed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"abrading structure with substantially sharp edges" ('591 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core exfoliating component of the claimed system. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the surfaces of the accused tips meet this "substantially sharp" requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the range of surface textures that can be found to infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the structure more generally as a "specially shape structure for abrading surface layers" and an "irregular or ridged surface structure," which may support a construction that is not limited to knife-like edges ('591 Patent, col. 1:29-30, col. 4:10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed descriptions of embodiments disclose specific "projecting edge" portions and teeth-like structures with "substantially a sharp edge," which could be used to argue for a more limited construction tied to these specific examples ('591 Patent, col. 5:9-10, col. 7:62-63, Figs. 7-9).

"raised outer periphery" ('886 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is a key structural limitation in the asserted method claim of the '886 Patent, defining a boundary that "completely surrounds the abrading structure." The infringement allegation for this patent relies heavily on the presence of this feature in the accused tips, as shown in the complaint's own labeled diagram (Compl. p. 12).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition for "raised," which could allow for arguments that any elevation relative to the base of the abrading structures meets the limitation, regardless of its height or shape.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent family (e.g., '886 Patent, Fig. 3, element 25A) depict a distinct, continuous wall-like structure forming the periphery. A defendant may argue that "raised outer periphery" must be construed as this type of substantial, enclosing wall, not merely a minor elevation change.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by its customers (e.g., Asim Medical Center) by providing the Accused Product, which is designed to be used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 41-43, 47-49, 53-55, 58-60, 64-66). The specific factual basis for intent is alleged as Defendant's knowledge of the infringing use by its customers (Compl. ¶42).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit and ongoing post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant had "actual knowledge" of the patents as of a February 1, 2017 notice letter (Compl. ¶34). It further alleges that Defendant "knowingly and intentionally infringed and continues to infringe" after receiving notice, and that its actions were taken with "reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' patent rights" (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 68).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "substantially sharp edges" and "apexes extending upwardly" be construed broadly enough to read on the specific surface architecture of the Defendant’s "Aqua Skin Facial" tips, or will they be limited to the more specific ridge and tooth-like embodiments shown in the patents?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the Accused Product, particularly its disposable tips, contain the specific geometric arrangements required by claims in the later patents, such as the "raised outer periphery" that "completely surrounds the abrading structure" as recited in the '886 patent?
• A central question for the method claims will be one of functional operation: does the use of the Accused Product's vacuum source "facilitate the delivery" of treatment media, as claimed in the '464 patent, or is its function limited to aspirating debris after the media has been applied by other means?