DCT
1:25-cv-00233
Erchonia Corp LLC v. Look Austin LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Erchonia Corporation LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: The Look Austin, LLC (Texas) and David Paul Stepp (Individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC; Dangler Law
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00233, W.D. Tex., 02/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on The Look Austin, LLC having a regular and established place of business in the district and David Paul Stepp residing in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s low-level laser device, used for cosmetic body contouring, infringes two patents related to non-invasive fat reduction methods and the laser's scanning-head apparatus.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of non-invasive aesthetic treatments, specifically the use of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to reduce body fat and contour the body without surgery.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Stepp engaged in discussions with Plaintiff in early December 2023 regarding the potential purchase of Plaintiff's patented "Emerald Laser" product. After being informed the product was outside his budget, Defendant allegedly imported and began using a "knockoff" device while marketing the service under Plaintiff's "Emerald Laser" trademark. This alleged pre-suit notice is central to the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-02 | U.S. Patent 7,947,067 Priority Date |
| 2004-02-06 | U.S. Patent 9,149,650 Priority Date |
| 2011-05-24 | U.S. Patent 7,947,067 Issued |
| 2015-10-06 | U.S. Patent 9,149,650 Issued |
| 2023-12-01 | (Early) Defendant Stepp allegedly discusses acquiring Plaintiff's product |
| 2023-12-31 | (Late) Defendant Stepp allegedly declines to purchase Plaintiff's product |
| 2024-01-05 | Earliest alleged date of infringing promotion on social media |
| 2025-02-18 | 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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the demand for body contouring and the drawbacks of invasive surgical procedures like liposuction, which involve pain, recovery time, and risk (Compl. Ex. A, ’650 Patent, col. 1:31-53). While non-invasive methods using red low-level laser therapy (LLLT) existed, the industry widely believed that lasers with wavelengths shorter than red light (approx. 632 nm) would either fail to penetrate the skin sufficiently to reach fat cells or would cause undesirable thermal damage (Compl. Ex. A, ’650 Patent, col. 2:32-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that challenges this conventional wisdom by using monochromatic laser energy at wavelengths shorter than 632 nm (and specifically shorter than 570 nm in the asserted claim) to non-traumatically slim a patient. The method applies this shorter-wavelength energy at a low dose rate that does not cause a detectable temperature increase in the tissue, which purportedly releases intracellular fat without destroying the fat cells (Compl. Ex. A, ’650 Patent, col. 2:19-25; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention demonstrated that shorter wavelengths, such as green laser light, could be surprisingly more effective and faster for non-invasive fat reduction than the established red-light LLLT methods, without causing the thermal trauma previously associated with higher-energy light sources (Compl. Ex. A, ’650 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key steps:
- Applying monochromatic laser energy having a wavelength shorter than 570 nm
- Applying the energy externally to the patient at a targeted area
- Applying the energy 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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that applying LLLT over a large surface area, such as for pre-liposuction treatment or hair restoration, was inefficient. It either required a large, costly array of laser diodes or demanded tedious manual scanning by a therapist, which could lead to inconsistent application (’067 Patent, col. 2:22-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a laser apparatus with a novel scanning head. This head uses a single laser beam directed through a hollow spindle to a rotating optical element (e.g., a rod lens). The optical element transforms the point-like laser beam into a line. As this element rotates 360 degrees, the line of light sweeps out a circular area, creating the "apparent solid circular second beam spot" (Compl. Ex. B, ’067 Patent, col. 4:5-20; Fig. 2). This provides automated, even coverage over a large area using a minimal number of laser sources.
- Technical Importance: This design offers a mechanically simple and cost-effective solution for automating LLLT application over large treatment zones, improving consistency and reducing the need for either expensive multi-diode arrays or manual operation by a practitioner (’067 Patent, col. 3:5-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a laser apparatus with the following key elements:
- At least one laser energy source for generating a laser beam
- A scanning head comprising a hollow spindle, a refractive optical element, a rotatable carriage, and means for rotation
- The refractive optical element produces a linear first beam spot
- The rotatable carriage, when rotated, creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot
- A means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is a laser device sold under names such as "LuxMaster," "LuxMaster Slim," or "MaxLipo" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges Defendants promote and use this device under the name "Emerald Laser," the same name as Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Device is a "Chinese knockoff" of Plaintiff's patented Emerald Laser (Compl. ¶23). Based on marketing materials cited in the complaint, the device is a non-invasive, low-level "cold laser" system for fat loss (Compl. ¶34(d)). It is alleged to use "10 diodes x 532nm true green laser beams" and a "360° Scanning" head to treat target areas on a patient's body (Compl. ¶34(b); p.12). The complaint shows the device being used in a clinical setting for body contouring treatments. An image from a third-party website shows the device's scanning mechanism projecting light onto a treatment area (Compl. p.11, ¶47a).
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 monochromatic laser energy... | Defendants' use of the Accused Device is alleged to be a "non-invasive procedure to lose weight and reduce body fat." The complaint cites website text describing the procedure as "photon therapy that uses light to treat health and cosmetic issues, including fat reduction" (Compl. p.7). | ¶34(a) | col. 4:4-21 |
| ...having a wavelength shorter than 570 nm... | The complaint alleges the Accused Device uses "10 diodes x 532nm true green laser beams." The 532 nm wavelength is shorter than the 570 nm required by the claim. | ¶34(b) | col. 8:1-3 |
| ...externally to the patient at a targeted area... | The complaint includes several images showing the accused device positioned over a patient's abdomen and legs, applying light externally. One such image shows multiple green laser beams projected onto a patient's back (Compl. p.8). | ¶34(c) | col. 4:39-42 |
| ...in a dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue. | The complaint cites marketing materials for the Accused Device that describe it as "LuxMaster Cold Laser Therapy" and state it has "No heating or freezing of the skin" (Compl. p.8). | ¶34(d) | col. 8:4-7 |
’067 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A laser comprising: a. at least one laser energy source for generating a laser beam; and b. a scanning head... | The complaint alleges the Accused Device is a laser that includes a scanning head. Visuals include a promotional image of the "LUXMASTER 532NM SLIM" device and a diagram from a product teardown showing the scanning head components (Compl. p.11, 12). | ¶47(a), (b) | col. 4:47-50 |
| i. a hollow spindle substantially coaxial with the laser beam and through which the laser beam is conveyed; | A diagram from an alleged teardown of the Accused Device explicitly labels a "HOLLOW SPINDLE" and a "LASER SOURCE," showing a "LASER BEAM - CONVEYED THROUGH HOLLOW SPINDLE" (Compl. p.13). | ¶47(b)(i) | col. 7:1-3 |
| ii. a refractive optical element through which the laser beam is conveyed to produce a linear first beam spot... | The complaint provides photos showing the device projecting a distinct linear beam onto a hand (Compl. p.14). A diagram also illustrates the "LASER BEAM - CONVERTED TO LINEAR SPOT VIA REFRACTIVE OPTICAL ELEMENT" (Compl. p.13). | ¶47(b)(ii) | col. 7:4-8 |
| iii. a rotatable carriage housing the optical element ... which, when rotated, creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot... | The complaint includes a marketing image captioned "10D rotating green laser lights scanning on belly" and another showing "360° Scanning on Larger Area" (Compl. p.15). A diagram labels a "CARRIAGE" and explains that the rotating line creates a "SCANNING LASER DEVICE VIA CIRCLE WITH LASER BEAM" (Compl. p.15). | ¶47(b)(iii) | col. 7:9-14 |
| iv. means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees. | This is a means-plus-function limitation. The complaint provides a diagram from an alleged product teardown identifying a "MOTOR - USED TO ROTATE THE CARRIAGE & OPTICAL ELEMENT" as the structure performing this function (Compl. p.15). | ¶47(b)(iv) | col. 4:21-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions (’650 Patent): The primary infringement evidence for the '650 patent method claims relies on Defendants' own marketing statements (e.g., "cold laser," "no heating"). A central question will be whether these marketing claims are sufficient evidence of infringement, or if Plaintiff will need to produce empirical evidence (e.g., thermal imaging tests) to prove the "no detectable temperature rise" limitation is met by the accused method as practiced.
- Technical Questions (’067 Patent): The infringement allegations for the '067 apparatus patent are supported by detailed diagrams and photographs, seemingly from a physical teardown of the Accused Device (Compl. ¶¶ 47(b)(i-iv)). This suggests a theory of literal infringement. The key dispute may focus on subtle technical or structural differences between the accused scanning head and the specific embodiments described in the patent, particularly concerning the construction of the "means for continuously rotating the carriage."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’650 Patent
- The Term: "no detectable temperature rise" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to distinguishing the claimed non-traumatic method from prior art ablative or thermal treatments. The definition of "detectable" is critical; if it means detectable by any means, however sensitive, it could be a difficult element to prove. If it implies detection by standard clinical tools or by the patient, the standard is lower. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity could be a key non-infringement or invalidity argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader (more stringent) Interpretation: The claim language itself does not qualify "detectable," which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning: detectable by any available scientific instrument.
- Evidence for a Narrower (less stringent) Interpretation: The related '067 patent, which is part of the same patent family according to the '067 specification, describes LLLT as causing "no macroscopically visible changes in tissue structure" ('067 Patent, col. 1:38-40). A party could argue this context implies that "detectable" should be interpreted in a macroscopic or clinically significant sense, rather than a microscopic or sub-clinical one.
For the ’067 Patent
- The Term: "apparent solid circular second beam spot" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the optical effect created by the invention. The spot is not actually solid; it is created by a rapidly rotating line of light. The term "apparent" acknowledges this. The dispute will likely center on how "solid" the spot must appear to meet the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the rapid rotation causes the laser beam "to appear to create a substantially circular beam spot on the patient's skin" ('067 Patent, col. 4:14-17). The use of "substantially" could support a construction that allows for some visible flicker or non-uniformity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art by emphasizing the creation of a large, effective treatment area. A party might argue that to be effective, the "apparent solid" spot must be perceived by the user as continuous and without significant gaps, otherwise the goal of even treatment coverage is not met.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint primarily alleges direct infringement by Defendants for making, using, and importing the accused device (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 44). The allegations state Defendants perform infringing "sessions" on patients (Compl. ¶34), constituting direct infringement of the method claims of the '650 patent. The complaint also alleges Defendant Stepp, as sole manager with decision-making authority, is directly and personally liable for the infringing acts (Compl. ¶20).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. The basis is the allegation that Defendant Stepp had actual, pre-suit knowledge of Erchonia's patents and products from business discussions in December 2023, and then proceeded to engage in the infringing conduct "less than one month" later (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 38, 50). This allegation of deliberate copying after a failed business negotiation is a strong basis for a willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: A central issue will be the factual record surrounding the alleged December 2023 discussions between the parties. The complaint frames a narrative of deliberate copying after a failed purchase inquiry. If proven, this could strongly support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages, making it a pivotal aspect of the case beyond the technical infringement analysis.
- Evidentiary Burden for Method Claims: For the '650 patent, a key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: will Plaintiff be able to prove that the accused method results in "no detectable temperature rise" through empirical testing, or can it successfully argue that Defendants' own "cold laser" marketing constitutes a binding admission that satisfies this claim element?
- Apparatus Infringement and Equivalence: For the '067 patent, the case presents a question of technical fidelity. The complaint's detailed teardown allegations suggest a strong case for literal infringement of the apparatus claims. The dispute will likely focus on whether any minor structural or operational deviations in the accused scanning head are sufficient to escape literal infringement, which would then shift the focus to a more complex doctrine of equivalents analysis.