Erchonia Corp LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Erchonia Corporation LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (allegedly People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13039, N.D. Ill., 10/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive commercial internet stores that ship to the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "MaxMaster Slim" green laser machine, sold for body contouring, infringes two patents related to low-level laser therapy (LLLT) devices and methods.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is non-invasive LLLT, which uses low-power lasers applied externally to achieve therapeutic or aesthetic effects, such as fat reduction, without damaging tissue.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-03-02	’067 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2004-02-06	’650 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2011-05-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,947,067 Issues
2015-10-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,149,650 Issues
2025-10-24	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,149,650 - “Non-Invasive Method for Slimming a Human Body Using Laser Energy of Wavelengths Shorter than 632 nm,” issued October 6, 2015 (’650 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that the LLLT industry previously believed that laser wavelengths shorter than the red spectrum (approx. 632 nm) would fail to penetrate skin deep enough to affect fat cells or would cause unwanted tissue heating and trauma due to their higher energy levels (’650 Patent, col. 2:30-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a non-invasive method for body slimming by applying laser energy at wavelengths shorter than 632 nm (e.g., green or violet light) externally to a patient. The method is designed to be non-destructive, specifying a "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue" (’650 Patent, col. 8:4-7). This approach is asserted to be surprisingly effective and to reduce treatment time compared to prior red-light therapies (’650 Patent, col. 3:60-65).
• Technical Importance: The invention proposed a more time-efficient method for non-invasive body contouring by challenging the conventional wisdom that only red-spectrum LLLT was suitable for non-traumatic fat reduction (’650 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally, and the patent contains two independent method claims (Claims 1 and 9).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the elements of:
  • applying monochromatic laser energy
  • having a wavelength shorter than 570 nm
  • externally to the patient at a targeted area
  • in a dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue
• Independent Claim 9 includes the elements of:
  • applying unfiltered laser energy
  • having a wavelength shorter than 570
  • externally to the patient at a first area
  • in a dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue

U.S. Patent No. 7,947,067 - “Scanning Treatment Laser with Sweep Beam Spot and Universal Carriage,” issued May 24, 2011 (’067 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of applying LLLT over large treatment areas. Hand-held devices can cause operator fatigue and inconsistent application, while devices using a large number of fixed laser diodes to cover an area are costly (’067 Patent, col. 2:35-40, col. 2:18-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a laser device featuring a scanning head that creates a large, circular treatment area from a single laser source. A laser beam passes through a hollow spindle to a "rotatable carriage" holding a refractive optical element, such as a rod lens (’067 Patent, col. 7:1-12). This element shapes the beam into a line. As the carriage continuously rotates 360 degrees, this line of light sweeps across the treatment area, creating the illusion of a solid, circular "beam spot" (’067 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:13-19).
• Technical Importance: This design allows for the automated, uniform treatment of a large surface area using a minimal number of laser sources, which could reduce the device's cost and complexity (’067 Patent, col. 2:61-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally. The patent's sole independent claim is a device claim.
• Independent Claim 1 includes the elements of:
  • at least one laser energy source generating a laser beam
  • a scanning head comprising a hollow spindle through which the beam is conveyed
  • a refractive optical element that receives the beam and produces a linear first beam spot
  • a rotatable carriage housing the optical element, which when rotated creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot
  • means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "MaxMaster Slim green laser machine" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused product as a device for non-invasive fat loss that utilizes a "green laser" (Compl. ¶4). Plaintiff alleges that all defendants sell the same infringing product under the common brand name "PerfectLaser," using identical logos and photographs on their internet stores (Compl. ¶3, ¶14). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused MaxMaster Slim, depicting a device with multiple laser-emitting heads mounted on an adjustable stand for positioning over a patient (Compl. Ex. 1). Plaintiff further alleges that the MaxMaster Slim is a "blatant copy" of the patented and non-patented design elements of its own commercial product, the "Erchonia Emerald Laser" (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Ex. 2-1, Ex. 3-1) that were not provided with the filing; therefore, the following is a summary of the narrative infringement theories.

’650 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' MaxMaster Slim infringes the "system claimed" in the ’650 Patent, which contains only method claims (Compl. ¶24). The theory appears to be that the use of the accused "green laser machine" for body contouring constitutes performance of the patented method. The product's identification as a "green laser" directly maps to the claim requirement of applying laser energy with a "wavelength shorter than 632 nm" (Compl. ¶4). The allegation that Defendants market the product with statements attributable to Plaintiff's FDA-cleared device suggests it is used for the same non-traumatic purpose, which would support infringement of the limitation requiring a "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise" (Compl. ¶25).

’067 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges indirect infringement of the "method claimed" in the ’067 Patent, which contains only a device claim (Compl. ¶31). The theory is that Defendants' customers directly infringe by using the MaxMaster Slim device, and Defendants induce and contribute to that infringement (Compl. ¶31, ¶36). The core of this allegation rests on the assertion that the accused product is a "blatant copy" of Plaintiff's "Emerald Laser," which is identified as a commercial embodiment of the patents (Compl. ¶10, ¶25). A visual provided in the complaint purports to show this copying of design elements (Compl. Ex. 4). This suggests the MaxMaster Slim incorporates the claimed "scanning head" with a rotating optical element that sweeps a laser beam to cover a large treatment area, as specified in Claim 1 of the ’067 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’067 Patent

• The Term: "refractive optical element ... to produce a linear first beam spot"
• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for this device claim will centrally depend on the structure and function of the optics within the accused MaxMaster Slim. The definition of "linear...spot" and the scope of "refractive optical element" will be critical for determining if the accused device's mechanism for distributing light falls within the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that while a "rod lens is preferred," a "prism or other optical element or combination thereof may suffice," which may support a construction not limited to a specific type of lens (’067 Patent, col. 4:6-9).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and preferred embodiments focus exclusively on the use of a "rod lens" to create the line of light, which could be cited to argue for a construction more closely tied to that specific embodiment (’067 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6).

For the ’650 Patent

• The Term: "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue"
• Context and Importance: This functional limitation distinguishes the claimed non-traumatic LLLT method from higher-power, ablative laser treatments that work by heating tissue. The case may turn on the evidentiary standard for what constitutes a "detectable" rise in temperature.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family specification describes LLLT as causing "no immediate detectable temperature rise...and no macroscopically visible changes in tissue structure," suggesting "detectable" refers to changes that are clinically significant or damaging, rather than any minute fluctuation (’067 Patent, col. 1:36-40).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "detectable" is not explicitly defined. A defendant could argue that any temperature increase measurable by standard scientific instruments is "detectable," potentially narrowing the claim to a very low power level that the accused method may not meet.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint explicitly alleges inducement and contributory infringement of the ’067 Patent. The inducement allegation is based on Defendants allegedly providing the MaxMaster Slim and encouraging its infringing use through marketing and advertising (Compl. ¶36). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the device has "no substantially non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶34).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on Defendants' "blatant copying" of Plaintiff's commercial product and its marketing materials, including allegedly false claims of FDA clearance (Compl. ¶25, ¶32). It also alleges willful blindness, stating that a simple review of Plaintiff's website would have provided notice of the patents (Compl. ¶26, ¶33). Post-suit willfulness is alleged based on continued infringement after the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶27, ¶35).

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

1. Evidentiary Question of Copying: A central factual issue will be whether the accused "MaxMaster Slim" is a "blatant copy" of Plaintiff's "Emerald Laser," as alleged in the complaint and depicted in its exhibits (Compl. ¶25, Ex. 4). The evidence presented on this point will significantly impact the claims for willful and indirect infringement, as well as the plausibility of the direct infringement allegations concerning the ’067 device patent.

2. Question of Technical Operation: The infringement analyses will raise key technical questions. For the ’067 Patent, does the accused device create a large treatment area using the claimed mechanism of a rotating optical element that sweeps a "linear" beam, or does it use a different technology? For the ’650 Patent, does the operation of the accused green laser result in "no detectable temperature rise," and what methodology will be used to prove or disprove this functional limitation?

3. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, particularly the scope of "refractive optical element" in the ’067 Patent and the meaning of "no detectable temperature rise" in the ’650 Patent. The resolution of these terms will define the boundaries of the patented inventions and determine whether the accused product and its method of use fall within them.