DCT
1:24-cv-11814
Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Restoration Holdings LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Advanced Hair Restoration LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Restoration Holdings, LLC (Illinois) and Jerry Davis (Individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bamert Regan; Lockyer Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11814, N.D. Ill., 11/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant Restoration Holdings, LLC resides, does business, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district. Venue over Defendant Davis is based on allegations of committing a tort within the district and purposefully directing activities at Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hair transplant services infringe a patent related to a shaveless follicular unit extraction method, alongside claims of trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of a prior settlement agreement.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of surgical hair restoration, specifically addressing methods for Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) that avoid the need to shave the patient's donor-site hair, a common prerequisite for such procedures.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties are subject to a December 2017 settlement agreement resolving a prior lawsuit. Plaintiff also alleges that it placed Defendant Restore on notice of its patent rights via a demand letter dated November 15, 2024, one day before filing the instant complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-11 | ’060 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-12-23 | Prior Litigation Settlement Agreement Signed |
| 2019-03-14 | ’060 Patent Application Published |
| 2024-01-30 | ’060 Patent Issued |
| 2024-11-15 | Plaintiff Sent Demand Letter to Defendant Restore |
| 2024-11-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,883,060 - VERSATILE FOLLICULAR TRANSPLANT METHOD AND SYSTEM (issued Jan. 30, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies drawbacks in conventional hair transplant techniques. Follicular Unit Transplantation (FUT) can leave a significant linear scar, while Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE), though less invasive, typically requires the patient to shave the donor area of the scalp. This shaving requirement is described as a deterrent for patients due to professional, social, or privacy concerns (’060 Patent, col. 1:21-49). Performing FUE on long hair is also described as clinically challenging due to issues like blood obscuring the work area and difficulty locating harvested grafts (’060 Patent, col. 4:1-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for extracting hair follicles from a patient with long hair without shaving the surrounding area. The core of the patented method involves using a cutting tool, such as a punch device, to first press a long hair against the scalp, thereby "pinching" it between the tool and the skin. The device is then activated to simultaneously cut the pinched hair to a short, manageable length and cut the skin around the base of the follicle, preparing it for extraction, while leaving adjacent long hairs untouched (’060 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9). This single-action approach to both hair trimming and follicle scoring is presented as the key to enabling an efficient "shaveless" FUE procedure (’060 Patent, col. 4:26-39).
- Technical Importance: The described technique purports to eliminate a primary barrier to entry for FUE procedures—the need for a conspicuous haircut—thereby potentially making the treatment accessible to a wider group of patients (’060 Patent, col. 1:44-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶67). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A method of extracting a single follicle having hair that extends over about 1 mm in length.
- placing the hair against a portion of the skin that is adjacent to the follicle;
- pinching the hair between the portion of the skin and a cutting tool device;
- cutting the pinched hair with the cutting tool device;
- cutting the skin around the follicle with the cutting tool device;
- extracting the follicle from the skin of the patient;
- whereby the surrounding hairs remain over 1 mm in length.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims of the ’060 Patent (Compl. ¶71).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "shaveless hair transplant" method and service offered, used, and sold by Defendant Restore (Compl. ¶67). The complaint alleges this service is marketed with designations such as "NO SHAVE FUE™" (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant Restore performs a shaveless hair transplant method that includes the actions recited by the claims of the ’060 Patent (Compl. ¶67). The complaint does not provide specific, independent technical details about how Restore's procedure operates, instead referring to a declaration and infringement contentions filed as exhibits but not included in the provided document (Compl. ¶67, ¶68). The allegations suggest Restore is a direct competitor to Plaintiff in the hair restoration market (Compl. ¶14, ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or a technical breakdown of the accused method's operation, referring instead to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶68). The infringement theory is based on the allegation that Restore's method performs the steps recited in the claims.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’060 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of extracting a single follicle..., the follicle having hair that extends over about 1 mm in length away from skin of the patient... | The complaint alleges Restore performs a "shaveless hair transplant" method, which necessarily operates on follicles with non-shaved hair. | ¶67 | col. 5:31-34 |
| placing the hair against a portion of the skin that is adjacent to the follicle; | The complaint alleges that Restore's method includes the actions recited by the claims of the ’060 Patent. | ¶67, ¶68 | col. 2:2-4 |
| pinching the hair between the portion of the skin and a cutting tool device; | The complaint alleges that Restore's method includes the actions recited by the claims of the ’060 Patent. | ¶67, ¶68 | col. 2:4-5 |
| cutting the pinched hair with the cutting tool device; | The complaint alleges that Restore's method includes the actions recited by the claims of the ’060 Patent. | ¶67, ¶68 | col. 2:5-6 |
| cutting the skin around the follicle with the cutting tool device; | The complaint alleges that Restore's method includes the actions recited by the claims of the ’060 Patent. | ¶67, ¶68 | col. 2:6-7 |
| extracting the follicle from the skin of the patient, | The complaint alleges that Restore's method includes the actions recited by the claims of the ’060 Patent. | ¶67, ¶68 | col. 2:7-8 |
| whereby cutting the pinched hair with the cutting tool device facilitates extracting the follicle...while hairs of the patient surrounding the pinched hair remain extending over 1 mm in length... | The complaint alleges that Restore's method constitutes direct infringement of the patent, which requires meeting all claim limitations, including this functional outcome. | ¶70 | col. 5:43-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the "whereby" clause. The court will need to determine whether this clause imposes a substantive limitation on the claim and, if so, what evidence is required to prove that the accused method leaves surrounding hairs uncut as specified.
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s allegations are conclusory and do not explain the mechanics of the accused method. A primary technical question for discovery will be whether Restore's method actually uses a single "cutting tool device" to sequentially or simultaneously "pinch" the hair, cut the hair, and score the skin. An alternative procedure using multiple distinct tools or steps could fall outside the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "pinching the hair between the portion of the skin and a cutting tool device"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central manipulative step of the invention that enables a single tool to perform multiple functions. The construction of "pinching" will be critical to determining the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could distinguish the claimed method from other conceivable techniques for managing long hair during FUE.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and summary use the word "pinching" without extensive modification, which may support an interpretation that covers any act of trapping the hair between a tool and the scalp to enable cutting (’060 Patent, col. 2:4-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links this action to a specific embodiment, explaining that "the clinician uses the punch device to pinch the hair shaft between the punch and the scalp" (’060 Patent, col. 4:29-30). This could support an argument that "pinching" is limited to the specific action performable by the edge of a punch-type device as depicted in the patent's figures.
- The Term: "cutting tool device"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires this single "device" to perform several distinct actions. Whether the accused process uses one integrated tool or multiple separate instruments (e.g., scissors followed by a separate punch) will be a core infringement question, making the definition of "cutting tool device" crucial.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic and could be argued to encompass any tool or combination of components that collectively performs the claimed functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes the "cutting tool device" as one comprising a "rotating cutter head element," which is characteristic of a surgical punch (’060 Patent, col. 2:15-16; col. 5:54-55). This repeated reference to a specific embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such a device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only direct infringement of the ’060 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not contain allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶67, ¶70).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Restore was put on notice of its infringement via a demand letter dated November 15, 2024, and that its infringement continued after receiving notice (Compl. ¶34). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the infringement was willful and seeks treble damages accordingly (Compl. p. 14, ¶(p)-(q)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of mechanistic scope: can the claims, which recite a method of "pinching" a hair with a single "cutting tool device" that then performs a dual cutting function, be read to cover the specific, non-public surgical technique used by the Defendant? The outcome will depend heavily on the construction of these key terms and the evidence revealed in discovery about the accused method.
- A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can develop to demonstrate that Defendant's confidential procedure meets every limitation of the asserted claims. The complaint's patent count currently rests on conclusory allegations, placing a significant burden on discovery to substantiate the infringement theory.
- The case presents a complex interplay between patent and trade secret law. The core technology of the patent is also alleged to have been a trade secret misappropriated by Defendants. This narrative raises the question of whether the allegedly infringing method was independently developed or derived from Plaintiff's proprietary information, a factual dispute that may influence the overall equities and potential damages in the case.