Altair Instruments Inc v. QVC Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Altair Instruments, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: QVC, Inc. (Delaware); Homedics USA, LLC (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-05799, C.D. Cal., 07/02/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants make, use, sell, or offer to sell the accused product in the district and because both Defendants maintain regular and established places of business within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Radiance” microdermabrasion device infringes a patent related to a system for exfoliating skin using a vacuum-assisted, abrasive-tipped wand.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld cosmetic devices for performing microdermabrasion, a procedure to remove the outer layer of skin, without using loose powdered abrasives.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739, has survived two ex parte reexaminations. It further alleges that the patent was previously litigated against other parties in the same district, resulting in a finding of validity and infringement that was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant QVC was a party in a separate, settled litigation involving the same patent and has had actual notice of the patent since at least August 2016.

Case Timeline

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 sought to overcome the drawbacks of prior art microdermabrasion techniques that used a stream of powdered abrasive particles, such as aluminum oxide. These methods created risks of particles being inhaled by patients or practitioners, lodging in the skin, or causing eye injury (’739 Patent, col. 2:16-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a device featuring a hollow tube, or wand, with an abrasive material, like diamond grit, permanently attached to its treatment tip. A vacuum is applied through an opening in the tip, which serves two purposes: it pulls the skin into firm contact with the abrasive surface for effective exfoliation, and it suctions away the removed skin cells into a filter (’739 Patent, col. 3:19-35, col. 5:41-48). This design eliminates the need for loose, powdered abrasives.
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for microdermabrasion that avoided the potential health hazards and cleanup associated with powdered abrasive systems while maintaining effective skin resurfacing (’739 Patent, col. 3:19-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. The claim text below reflects amendments made during reexamination.
• Claim 1, as amended, requires:
  • A device for removing the epidermis without damaging the dermis in a microdermabrasion procedure.
  • A source of a vacuum.
  • A tube with a treatment tip for removing epidermis cells.
  • The treatment tip has an abrasive material permanently attached to its operating end, forming a treatment delivery surface.
  • The treatment delivery surface has a fixed orientation relative to the tube's longitudinal axis.
  • The tube is connected to the vacuum source, creating reduced pressure in its lumen.
  • The treatment delivery surface has one or more openings for continuously applying the reduced pressure to a skin surface.
  • The applied vacuum causes the skin to have an increased area of contact with the abrasive material.
  • The vacuum also functions to collect the removed epidermis cells.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the "Radiance" microdermabrasion device, sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The "Radiance" is a handheld, powered device designed for personal microdermabrasion. The complaint provides an exploded-view diagram of the accused "Radiance" device, identifying its "Diamond Tip," "Black Wool Filter," "Handle," and other components (Compl. p. 4). The device utilizes interchangeable tips with abrasive surfaces ("Diamond Tip" and "Sensitive Diamond Tip") and incorporates a vacuum function to remove exfoliated skin cells into a "Black Wool Filter" (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges the device is used to remove the epidermis (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’739 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of contention is the meaning of "permanently attached." The defense may argue that the device's interchangeable "diamond tips" are not "permanently attached" in the way required by the claim. The complaint's own visual evidence identifying multiple, distinct tips may be used to frame this question (Compl. p. 4).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement case may depend on factual evidence proving the dual function of the vacuum. A key question for the court will be whether the vacuum in the "Radiance" device demonstrably causes an "increased area of contact" between the skin and the abrasive tip, or if its primary function is merely to collect debris after abrasion occurs through manual pressure alone.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "permanently attached"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the invention from prior art that used loose, flowing abrasive powders. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused device's use of user-interchangeable tips falls within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the specification supports a broader reading where "permanently" means affixed for the duration of a treatment procedure. The patent describes an embodiment with a "removable disc 46 sized to fit over the end 40 of the tube 22," which can be "interchanged" and "discarded," suggesting that non-permanent interchangeability between uses is contemplated by the invention (’739 Patent, col. 5:1-4).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue for a narrower definition, meaning non-removably bonded for the life of the tip. They could point to the embodiment describing diamond grit "adhered to the end of a metal tube by a plating process using nickel 44 as a binder" as the primary teaching of a truly permanent attachment (’739 Patent, col. 4:25-27).

• The Term: "said continuously applied vacuum causing the skin being treated to have an increased area of contact"

  • Context and Importance: This functional limitation requires that the vacuum perform a specific action—actively increasing skin-to-tip contact—not just passively collect debris. Proving infringement requires showing the accused device's vacuum achieves this specific result.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue this is an inherent quality of applying a vacuum through a treatment tip to skin, citing the specification's general statement that "The vacuum also causes the skin to be held in intimate contact with the abrasive tip during the treatment procedure" (’739 Patent, col. 2:43-45).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that this limitation requires a specific mechanism or result beyond incidental suction. They could contend that this function is most clearly taught in the context of a "concave surface as shown in FIG. 4," which "provides a larger surface area for the skin/abrasive material contact" when combined with a vacuum, and that the accused flat-tipped device does not operate in the same way (’739 Patent, col. 5:48-52).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants provide the "Radiance" device with instructions for use and know that following these instructions constitutes infringement of the ’739 patent (Compl. ¶19). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused devices are a material part of the invention and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a detailed allegation of willful infringement. It claims Defendant QVC has had actual, pre-suit knowledge of the ’739 patent since at least August 12, 2016, when it was served with a complaint in a prior infringement case involving the same patent (Compl. ¶¶11, 20). The complaint further alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful because they continued to sell the accused devices despite this knowledge and the subsequent affirmance of the patent's validity by the Federal Circuit in another case (Compl. ¶¶15, 21).

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

• A central legal issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "permanently attached"? The resolution of whether this term can encompass the user-interchangeable tips of the accused device, in light of specification language describing both bonded grit and removable discs, will likely be a dispositive factor in the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of causation and function: does the vacuum in the "Radiance" device, as a matter of technical fact, perform the specific function of "causing the skin... to have an increased area of contact with the abrasive material," as required by the claim? The case may turn on factual evidence, such as expert testing, demonstrating whether this claimed functional result is actually achieved by the accused product.
• Given the patent's extensive litigation and reexamination history cited in the complaint, a significant question for trial will be culpability: if infringement is found, did Defendants act willfully? The allegations of QVC's prior involvement in litigation over the same patent and knowledge of a Federal Circuit decision upholding its validity against a similar device will frame a critical dispute over whether any infringement was "wanton and deliberate," potentially leading to enhanced damages.