DCT
3:25-cv-00205
Erchonia Corp LLC v. Body Refine Studio LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Erchonia Corporation LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: The Body Refine Studio, LLC (Louisiana); Waree Dorsey-Williams (an individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: NeunerPate; Dangler Law
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00205, M.D. La., 03/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant The Body Refine Studio, LLC maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and Defendant Waree Dorsey-Williams, the company's sole member, is domiciled in the district. Both are alleged to have committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' use of a "LuxMaster Slim" device for providing "Green Laser Lipo" services infringes two patents related to low-level laser therapy methods and the mechanical devices used to perform them.
- Technical Context: The technology involves non-invasive, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) devices and methods for cosmetic body slimming and fat reduction, a segment of the aesthetic medicine market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendants a cease and desist letter, including copies of the patents-in-suit, on June 20, 2024. This notice is cited as a basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-02 | ’067 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-02-06 | ’650 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-05-24 | ’067 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-10-06 | ’650 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-09-XX | Accused Device Use Commenced |
| 2024-06-20 | Cease and Desist Letter Sent to Defendants |
| 2025-03-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 Oct. 6, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market need for effective, non-invasive body contouring methods that avoid the trauma, risks, and recovery time of surgical liposuction (ʼ650 Patent, col. 1:31-52). It notes that at the time of invention, the LLLT industry believed that laser wavelengths shorter than red light (approx. 632 nm) would either fail to penetrate the skin deep enough to reach fat cells or would be too energetic and cause thermal tissue damage (ʼ650 Patent, col. 2:32-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of slimming a patient by applying monochromatic laser energy of a wavelength shorter than 570 nm (i.e., green or violet light) externally to the skin (ʼ650 Patent, Abstract). This application is performed at a low dose rate that, contrary to prior assumptions, allegedly causes no detectable temperature rise in the tissue, thereby avoiding thermal damage while still achieving a reduction in fat and body circumference (ʼ650 Patent, col. 3:58-68).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method challenged the prevailing industry view by demonstrating that shorter, higher-energy wavelengths could be used for non-traumatic body slimming, and suggests this approach is more effective and time-efficient than prior methods using red laser light (ʼ650 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 3 (Compl. ¶27).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method of slimming a patient, comprising:
- 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.
U.S. Patent No. 7,947,067 - Scanning Treatment Laser With Sweep Beam Spot and Universal Carriage (issued May 24, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of applying LLLT uniformly over a large surface area of a patient's body (ʼ067 Patent, col. 2:60-col. 3:4). Manually moving a handheld laser is imprecise and fatiguing for the operator, while using a large array of individual laser diodes is complex and expensive (ʼ067 Patent, col. 2:35-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical scanning laser head. It uses a single laser source that directs a beam through a hollow spindle onto an optical element (e.g., a rod lens) housed in a rotatable carriage (ʼ067 Patent, col. 4:5-11). The optical element converts the point-like laser beam into a line. A motor then continuously rotates the carriage, causing the line of light to sweep through 360 degrees, thereby creating what appears to the human eye as a large, solid, circular treatment spot on the patient's skin (ʼ067 Patent, col. 4:11-20; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This apparatus provides a cost-effective and automated way to irradiate a large, well-defined treatment area with a minimal number of laser sources, improving consistency and reducing the need for manual operation (ʼ067 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a laser device with:
- at least one laser energy source; and
- a scanning head comprising:
- a hollow spindle coaxial with the laser beam;
- a refractive optical element to produce a linear first beam spot;
- a rotatable carriage housing the optical element, which when rotated creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot; and
- means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Device" is identified as a laser therapy machine sold under names such as "LuxMaster" or "LuxMaster Slim," which the complaint characterizes as a "Chinese knockoff of Erchonia's patented Emerald Laser" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Device is used by Defendants, a wellness and weight loss studio, to perform "body contouring and sculpting services" advertised as "Green Laser Lipo" (Compl. ¶18, ¶22). Marketing materials cited in the complaint describe the device as a "low-level, non-thermal laser which emits 10 532nm green lasers on to the skin" for the purpose of fat reduction (Compl. ¶30b). The complaint includes a marketing image showing a device with multiple articulated laser heads positioned over a patient (Compl. ¶6). Further materials describe a "360° Scanning" feature, which involves "10D rotating green laser lights" to cover a large area (Compl. ¶19, ¶43b).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’650 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of slimming a patient, the method comprising applying... | Defendants use the Accused Device to provide "body contouring," "fat removal," and "fat loss" services to clients. | ¶18, ¶27, ¶30a | col. 1:16-19 |
| ...monochromatic laser energy... | The Accused Device is alleged to use "monochromatic green" laser energy. | ¶31 | col. 8:1-2 |
| ...having a wavelength shorter than 570 nm... | The Accused Device is alleged to utilize lasers with a wavelength of 532 nm. | ¶32 | col. 8:3-5 |
| ...externally to the patient at a targeted area... | The device applies laser energy "on to the skin" to "target areas of stubborn fat." A provided social media image shows the device applying green light to a client's thighs. | ¶30c, ¶12 | col. 1:21-24 |
| ...in a dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue. | Marketing materials for the Accused Device describe it as a "non-thermal laser" and "Cold Laser Therapy" with "No heating or freezing of the skin." | ¶30d | col. 8:6-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The allegation of "no detectable temperature rise" relies on marketing claims of "non-thermal" operation. A central factual question will be what objective evidence demonstrates that the accused method, as actually practiced by Defendants, does not cause a temperature increase in the treated tissue.
- Scope Question: The complaint's evidence is based on marketing for the "LuxMaster" device. A foundational question will be whether the specific device used by the defendants operates with the wavelength and power characteristics described in these third-party materials.
’067 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. at least one laser energy source for generating a laser beam; | The complaint presents images of laser components from the Accused Device, including what is labeled as a "LASER SOURCE." | ¶43a | col. 5:66-67 |
| b. i. a hollow spindle substantially coaxial with the laser beam... | A diagram from an online seller, purportedly of the Accused Device, shows a component labeled "HOLLOW SPINDLE" through which a laser beam path is shown. | ¶43b(i) | col. 7:1-3 |
| b. ii. a refractive optical element ... to produce a linear first beam spot... | A diagram shows a laser beam being converted to a "LINEAR SPOT VIA REFRACTIVE OPTICAL ELEMENT." | ¶43b(ii) | col. 7:4-8 |
| b. iii. a rotatable carriage housing the optical element... which, when rotated, creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot... | Marketing materials illustrate "360° Scanning on Area" and show a rotating element creating a swept pattern of green light. | ¶43b(iii) | col. 7:9-15 |
| b. iv. means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees. | A teardown diagram shows a "MOTOR - USED TO ROTATE THE CARRIAGE & OPTICAL ELEMENT" connected to a "CARRIAGE - SLIP RING." | ¶43b(iv) | col. 7:16-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Question (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1(b)(iv) is a means-plus-function limitation. The infringement analysis will require a two-part test: whether the accused device performs the identical function (continuously rotating the carriage 360 degrees), and if so, whether the structure that performs it (a motor and slip ring assembly, per Compl. ¶43b(iv)) is structurally equivalent to the corresponding structure disclosed in the ʼ067 Patent specification (a "main drive motor" driving a "main drive gear" and "minor drive gear") ('067 Patent, col. 4:21-26).
- Technical Question: The complaint's allegations regarding the internal structure of the Accused Device rely on diagrams and teardowns from third-party seller websites (Compl. ¶43). It raises the question of what evidence will link this third-party information to the specific device actually imported and used by the Defendants.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "no detectable temperature rise" (’650 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This negative limitation is critical for distinguishing the claimed method from prior art thermal/ablative treatments and forms a core part of the non-traumatic infringement theory. Its definition will determine the standard of proof for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity regarding the method and sensitivity of "detection" creates a significant factual hurdle.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., less stringent for plaintiff): The patent repeatedly contrasts the invention with methods that "heat the surrounding tissue" ('650 Patent, col. 2:9-10) or "traumatizing the patient" (col. 2:50-51), suggesting "detectable" should be understood in a clinical context of avoiding tissue damage, not a laboratory context of measuring any minute energy change.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., more stringent for plaintiff): The term is not explicitly defined. A defendant could argue for its plain meaning, which could imply that any temperature increase measurable by any sufficiently sensitive instrument would mean the limitation is not met. The specification does not limit the method or instrumentation for detection.
Term: "apparent solid circular second beam spot" (’067 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term defines the output of the claimed scanning mechanism. The infringement analysis depends on whether the pattern created by the Accused Device meets this description. The Accused Device is advertised as having "10D rotating green laser lights," raising a question about the resulting pattern's appearance.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the "apparent" shape is an illusion created by rapid scanning, noting it is "the result of the scanning light diameter sweeping from location to location at a speed that makes the motion nearly imperceptible to the human eye" ('067 Patent, col. 4:16-19). This supports interpreting "solid" and "circular" based on the visual effect on an observer, not a literal, static measurement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures (e.g., Fig. 2) and description are based on a single line rotating to form a circle. A defendant might argue that a device with ten rotating heads, as suggested by the "10D" marketing, would create a different pattern (e.g., overlapping circles or a spoked wheel) that is not an "apparent solid circular...spot" as taught by the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement of both the '650 and '067 patents (Compl. ¶34, ¶46). The allegation is based on Defendants' continued use of the Accused Device after being put on actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a cease and desist letter sent on or about June 20, 2024 (Compl. ¶21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary linkage and technical proof: Can the Plaintiff prove, beyond third-party marketing materials, that the specific device used by Defendants has the internal rotating-line-scanner mechanism required by the '067 patent and, as operated, produces "no detectable temperature rise" as required by the '650 patent?
- A central legal question for the '067 patent will be the scope of the means-plus-function claim: Will the court find that the accused motor-and-slip-ring assembly is structurally equivalent to the gear-driven assembly disclosed in the patent, a determination that will be critical to the infringement analysis for that patent?
- The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: How the court defines "apparent solid circular...spot" ('067 patent) and "no detectable temperature rise" ('650 patent) will significantly shape the factual scope of what Plaintiff must prove to establish infringement.