2:24-cv-04253
HydraFacial LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HydraFacial LLC (California)
- Defendant: Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
Case Identification: 2:24-cv-04253, E.D.N.Y., 06/14/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Skinwave hydrodermabrasion system infringes a patent related to multi-functional skin treatment devices.
Technical Context: Hydrodermabrasion systems are a category of aesthetic medical devices that exfoliate the skin using fluids and vacuum suction, often delivering therapeutic solutions simultaneously.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the asserted patent and the alleged infringement via a letter dated May 29, 2024, approximately two weeks before filing the lawsuit. The asserted patent is part of a large family of applications and includes a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-12-30 | '287 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2024-01-09 | '287 Patent - Issue Date |
| Not specified in complaint | Accused Skinwave System Launch Date |
| 2024-05-29 | Plaintiff's letter notifying Defendant of alleged infringement |
| 2024-06-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287 - DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATING SKIN
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, "DEVICES AND METHODS FOR TREATING SKIN," issued January 9, 2024 (the "’287 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional skin abrasion techniques like dermabrasion and microdermabrasion as potentially messy, painful, or limited in their therapeutic effect because they can dehydrate the skin and are performed separately from the application of moisturizing or therapeutic agents (’287 Patent, col. 1:36-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated skin treatment apparatus that combines exfoliation, the controlled delivery of fluids from multiple sources, and waste removal into a single system. It features a console that holds multiple containers of treatment fluids, a handpiece to apply the treatment, and a manifold or "block" that selectively routes chosen fluids to the handpiece while a vacuum system simultaneously removes used fluid and abraded skin cells (’287 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-35). This allows for multi-step procedures, such as cleansing, exfoliating, and hydrating, to be performed with a single device.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to advance microdermabrasion by enabling more complex, sequential skin treatments within a single procedure, combining mechanical exfoliation with the simultaneous and controlled topical application of various therapeutic fluids (’287 Patent, col. 6:28-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1.
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system comprising a console, a handpiece, a block within the console, and a vacuum source.
- The console is configured to receive a first container and at least one additional container for treatment fluids.
- The block is configured to selectively receive fluid from the different containers and to be in fluid communication with the handpiece.
- The handpiece is configured to be in fluid communication with the vacuum source via a second conduit.
- The system is configured to deliver the treatment fluid from the first container and the additional treatment fluid from the other container(s) to the handpiece sequentially.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "Skinwave System" sold by Defendant Cartessa Aesthetics (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Skinwave System as a hydrodermabrasion device for treating a patient's skin surface (Compl. ¶13). It includes a console that holds multiple containers of skin treatment fluids, such as solutions containing Alpha Hydroxy Acid (AHA) and Beta Hydroxy Acid (BHA), and a handpiece for application (Compl. ¶¶13, 15). The system is alleged to use "vacuum-suction" to exfoliate the skin by "eliminating dead skin cells and impurities" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the Skinwave System is a competing product in the aesthetic skin resurfacing market (Compl. ¶¶12, 17).
- An image from the complaint shows the accused Skinwave System console with a handpiece and three containers for treatment fluids (Compl. ¶13, p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'287 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for treating skin, the system comprising: | The Skinwave System is described as a system for treating the skin surface, combining an "aqua-delivery system, skin revitalizing solutions and Hydrogen therapy." | ¶24, p. 6 | Abstract |
| (a) a console configured to receive a first container and at least one additional container; | The accused console is shown in photographs configured to receive a first container and at least two additional containers holding treatment fluids. | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 2:26-28 |
| (b) a handpiece configured to contact skin tissue of a subject; and; | The accused system includes an "Aqua-Delivery Handpiece" that is configured to contact the patient's skin. | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 2:28-29 |
| (c) a block in the console, wherein the block is: configured to selectively receive fluid from the first container...configured to selectively receive fluid from the at least one additional container...and, configured to selectively be in fluid communication with the handpiece... | The complaint alleges an internal "block" within the console selectively receives fluid from the selected container, as indicated by the user interface, and delivers it to the handpiece. A photograph from the complaint shows the user interface with distinct selectors for different fluids. | ¶24, pp. 8-11 | col. 2:30-35 |
| (d) a vacuum source, wherein the console comprises the vacuum source; and | The complaint alleges the Skinwave System uses "vacuum-suction" for cleansing and exfoliation, and that this vacuum source is located within the console. | ¶24, p. 12 | col. 5:40-43 |
| (e) wherein the handpiece is configured to be in fluid communication with the vacuum source through a second conduit when the handpiece is connected to the console; | The handpiece is alleged to be in fluid communication with the vacuum source through a second, internal conduit to provide "improved suction." A photograph from the complaint depicts the handpiece mount and an internal conduit. | ¶24, pp. 12-13 | col. 7:36-40 |
| (f)(2) the system is configured to deliver the first treatment fluid...and the additional treatment fluid...to the handpiece sequentially. | The system is alleged to be configured for sequential delivery, citing a "three-step process" where a user selects and delivers different fluids (AHA, then BHA, then Hyaluronic Acid) one after another. | ¶24, p. 15 | col. 6:28-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "block in the console" that performs specific fluid-routing functions. The patent specification, however, primarily describes a "manifold system" ('287 Patent, col. 5:27). The dispute may turn on whether the accused system's internal fluid-handling architecture can be properly characterized as the claimed "block," raising a potential claim construction issue.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the system be "configured to deliver" fluids "sequentially." The complaint provides evidence of user-selectable modes for different fluids (Compl. ¶24, p. 15). This raises the question of whether manual, user-initiated, one-at-a-time fluid selection meets the "configured to...sequentially" limitation, or if the claim requires a more automated or programmed sequence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "block in the console"
Context and Importance: This term appears to be a central, functional element of the claimed system, responsible for all fluid selection and routing. The complaint identifies an internal component of the accused device as this "block" (Compl. ¶24, p. 8). The construction of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as the defendant's system may not use this exact terminology for its components.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself functionally defines the "block" by what it does: "configured to selectively receive fluid from the first container," "selectively receive fluid from the... additional container," and be in "fluid communication with the handpiece" (’287 Patent, cl. 1). A party could argue that any component or set of components performing these recited functions meets the limitation, regardless of its specific name or form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "block" is not explicitly defined or used in the detailed description of the ’287 Patent, which instead describes a "manifold system 24" (e.g., '287 Patent, col. 5:27-30; FIG. 15A). A party could argue that the scope of "block" should be limited to the disclosed "manifold system" embodiment or similar structures, rather than covering any functionally equivalent component.
The Term: "sequentially"
Context and Importance: This term describes the required order of fluid delivery. The complaint's infringement theory relies on the accused system's ability to perform a "three-step process" where different fluids are used one after another (Compl. ¶24, p. 15). Whether this user-driven process meets the definition of "sequentially" is a key infringement question.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "treatment materials from multiple containers 26 are sequentially or simultaneously applied to the patient's skin" ('287 Patent, col. 6:28-30). This could support a view that "sequentially" simply means "one after another in time," a condition met by a user selecting different fluids in succession.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discusses a "user input device 32 for selecting a treatment material" and the ability to "change program chips within the computer according to treatment and/or patient" (’287 Patent, col. 6:25-26; col. 18:32-34). This might suggest that "sequentially" implies a pre-set or programmed order of operations controlled by the system's software, rather than purely manual, ad-hoc selections by an operator.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant markets and sells the Skinwave System with instructions and information that encourage and direct end users to use the system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’287 Patent at least as of its receipt of a notice letter on May 29, 2024, and continued its infringing activities thereafter (Compl. ¶¶16, 21, 29). It further alleges Defendant knew or should have known of Plaintiff's patent rights due to being a direct competitor (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "block in the console," which is not explicitly defined in the patent’s specification, be construed broadly to read on the internal fluid-handling mechanics of the accused Skinwave system, or will its meaning be limited by the "manifold system" embodiments disclosed in the patent?
A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement and functionality: does the accused system's user interface, which allows an operator to manually select different fluids one at a time, satisfy the claim requirement that the system is "configured to deliver" fluids "sequentially," or does this limitation require a more automated, pre-programmed delivery sequence?