Altair Instruments Inc v. Telebrands Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Altair Instruments, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Telebrands Corp. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-10440, C.D. Cal., 12/17/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s operation of several distribution centers and other regular and established places of business within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Dermasuction" microdermabrasion device infringes a patent related to a method and apparatus for skin exfoliation that uses a vacuum-assisted, fixed-abrasive wand.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld cosmetic devices for microdermabrasion, a non-invasive procedure to rejuvenate the skin by removing the outermost epidermal layer.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit has survived two separate ex parte reexamination proceedings at the USPTO. It also states that the patent’s validity and infringement by a "very similar" device were previously confirmed in a separate district court case, a ruling that was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiff alleges to have provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter dated October 10, 2018.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-11-12	U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2001-06-05	U.S. Patent No. 6,241,739 Issue Date
2007-12-11	First Reexamination Certificate (C1) for '739 Patent Issued
2015-07-15	Second Reexamination Certificate (C2) for '739 Patent Issued
2018-10-10	Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant
2018-12-17	Complaint Filing Date

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. (’739 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art microdermabrasion techniques that relied on blasting the skin with powdered abrasives, such as aluminum oxide microcrystals. This approach created potential health hazards, as the abrasive dust could be inhaled by the operator or patient, injure the eyes, or become embedded in the skin, leading to irritation and potential infection. (’739 Patent, col. 2:17-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a microdermabrasion device that avoids loose powders by using a hollow tube, or wand, with an abrasive material permanently attached to the treatment tip. A vacuum is applied through an opening in the abrasive tip, which serves two functions: it pulls the skin into firm, "intimate contact" with the abrasive surface for effective exfoliation, and it simultaneously vacuums away the removed dead skin cells for collection and disposal. (’739 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:12-24).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to improve the safety and cleanliness of the microdermabrasion procedure by eliminating the risks associated with airborne abrasive particles. (’739 Patent, col. 1:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and method claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18. (Compl. ¶14, ¶20).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 (as amended by reexamination) include:
  • A source of a vacuum.
  • A tube with a treatment tip having an abrasive material permanently attached to its operating end to provide a treatment delivery surface with a fixed orientation.
  • The tube is attached to the vacuum source to create a reduced pressure within its lumen.
  • The treatment delivery surface has one or more openings to continuously apply the reduced pressure to a skin surface.
  • The 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 reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Dermasuction" device. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Dermasuction is a device used to remove the epidermis in a microdermabrasion procedure. (Compl. ¶13). It is alleged to operate using a vacuum source and an abrasive "diamond tip" to exfoliate skin. (Compl. ¶12, ¶13).
• A visual provided in the complaint shows the Dermasuction device, a charging base, and a set of four different interchangeable tips with varying abrasive surfaces. (Compl. p. 3).
• The complaint cites marketing language stating the device "is perfect to exfoliate dead skin for spa-like skin rejuvenation." (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'739 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A device for removing the epidermis without damaging the dermis of the skin in a microdermabrasion procedure comprising: a source of a vacuum, and	The Dermasuction includes a source of vacuum.	¶13	col. 3:9-14
a tube with a treatment tip thereon for removing cells comprising the epidermis layer... the treatment tip having an abrasive material permanently attached to an operating end thereof to provide a treatment delivery surface,	The "diamond tip" is alleged to be a tube with a treatment tip that has an abrasive material permanently attached to provide a treatment delivery surface.	¶13	col. 3:18-24
the treatment delivery surface having an orientation fixed in regard to an axis extending longitudinally through the tube,	The treatment delivery surface has an orientation fixed in regard to its longitudinal axis.	¶13	col. 4:51-54
the tube being attached to the source of vacuum so that a lumen through the tube has a reduced pressure therein which is less than the ambient pressure surrounding the tube,	The tube is attached to the vacuum source, creating a reduced pressure within its lumen.	¶13	col. 3:4-10
the treatment delivery surface having one or more openings therein for continuously applying the reduced pressure... to a skin surface,	The treatment delivery surface has an opening to apply the reduced pressure to the skin.	¶13	col. 5:41-44
said continuously applied vacuum causing the skin being treated to have an increased area of contact with the abrasive material permanently attached to the treatment tip,	The vacuum causes the skin to have an increased area of contact with the abrasive material on the tip.	¶13	col. 5:44-48
the vacuum also functioning to collect epidermis cells of the skin surface being treated.	The vacuum functions to collect the epidermis cells removed from the skin.	¶13	col. 3:29-33

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused device's interchangeable "diamond tip" itself "constitutes a tube with a treatment tip thereon." (Compl. p. 4). This raises the question of whether a small, removable component can satisfy the "tube" limitation, especially as the patent figures appear to distinguish between a larger "wand assembly" (the tube) and the "treatment tip" mounted upon it. (’739 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "permanently attached." The accused device uses interchangeable tips, as shown in the complaint's own visual evidence. (Compl. p. 3). The infringement analysis will question whether an interchangeable tip can be considered "permanently attached" as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "permanently attached"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused device features interchangeable tips. The defendant may argue that an interchangeable component is, by definition, not "permanent." The plaintiff’s infringement case depends on a construction where "permanently attached" refers to the abrasive particles (e.g., diamond grit) being durably bonded to the tip's surface, rather than the tip being irremovably fixed to the wand.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly contemplates and describes embodiments with a "removable and replaceable tip" and interchangeable abrasive discs. (’739 Patent, col. 5:61-64; col. 5:1-4). This language suggests the "permanence" relates to the bonding of the abrasive medium to the tip, distinguishing it from the prior art's loose, flowing powders.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites "an abrasive material permanently attached to an operating end." A defendant could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "permanently" implies non-removable. The specification also describes a primary embodiment where diamond grit is bonded to a metal tube via a plating process, which could be argued as connoting a more permanent, integrated structure. (’739 Patent, col. 4:24-31).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Users of the Dermasuction also infringe" the asserted method claims. (Compl. ¶20). This forms a basis for a claim of induced infringement, supported by allegations that Defendant provides the device and, through marketing and instructions, encourages and directs customers to use it in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that on October 10, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant identifying the '739 patent and accusing the Dermasuction device of infringement. The complaint alleges that Defendant continued to sell the product despite receiving this notice. (Compl. ¶18).

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

• A central issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "permanently attached," as used in Claim 1, be construed to read on a device that uses interchangeable treatment tips? The resolution will depend on whether the court finds the term refers to the durable bonding of abrasive particles to the tip surface (favoring the patentee) or to the irremovable nature of the tip itself (favoring the accused infringer).
• The case will also present a question of structural scope: does the accused device’s small, interchangeable "diamond tip" meet the claim limitation of "a tube with a treatment tip thereon," or does the patent require a larger wand-like "tube" structure that is distinct from the "tip"? The plaintiff's conflation of these two elements in its infringement chart suggests this will be a point of dispute.