DCT

2:25-cv-00273

Erchonia Corp LLC v. Vibragenix LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00273, E.D. Wash., 07/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant VibraGenix, LLC being a Washington company with a regular and established place of business in the district, and Defendant Dr. Caroline Stites residing in the district. Both are alleged to have committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ low-level laser therapy systems infringe two patents related to methods for non-invasive fat reduction and the mechanical apparatus for scanning a laser beam.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is low-level laser therapy (LLLT) used for non-invasive aesthetic medical treatments, specifically for body contouring and fat reduction.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants' principal, Dr. Stites, engaged in discussions with Plaintiff in January 2024 regarding Plaintiff's "Emerald Laser" products, during which she received information about Plaintiff's patented technology. The complaint alleges that shortly thereafter, Defendants began marketing and selling what Plaintiff describes as "substantial copies" of its products, forming the 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
2020-01-01 Alleged start of Plaintiff's use of "EMERALD LASER" mark
2024-01-01 Alleged discussions between Plaintiff and Defendant Dr. Stites
2025-07-28 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 addresses the limitations of existing body contouring methods, noting that invasive procedures like liposuction involve risks and recovery time, while prior non-invasive techniques using electromagnetic energy often caused excessive heating and tissue damage ('650 Patent, col. 1:39-54; col. 2:8-11). The industry was also skeptical that laser wavelengths shorter than red light (i.e., < 632 nm) could effectively treat fatty tissue non-traumatically, believing such light would either be absorbed by the skin or would require damaging energy levels to penetrate sufficiently ('650 Patent, col. 2:31-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of applying monochromatic laser energy at a wavelength shorter than 570 nm (e.g., green laser light at 532 nm) to a targeted area of a patient's body ('650 Patent, Abstract). The key is that the laser is applied at a low "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue," which non-traumatically stimulates fat cells to release their contents, resulting in slimming ('650 Patent, col. 8:5-9). This method claims to be surprisingly more effective and faster than using traditional red LLLT for the same purpose ('650 Patent, col. 3:61-68).
  • Technical Importance: The invention represented a counter-intuitive advance by demonstrating that higher-energy (shorter wavelength) photons could be used for non-thermal, non-destructive biostimulation for fat reduction. ('650 Patent, col. 3:61-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 32).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method of slimming a patient, the method 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 identifies a need for a more efficient way to apply LLLT over large treatment areas ('067 Patent, col. 3:1-4). Manually moving a hand-held laser is tedious and imprecise, while existing automated devices like hair-growth helmets were mechanically complex, expensive, and geometrically constrained ('067 Patent, col. 2:18-22, 2:36-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a scanning laser apparatus. A laser beam is directed through a hollow spindle to a "refractive optical element" (such as a rod lens) mounted in a "rotatable carriage" ('067 Patent, col. 4:5-10). This optical element transforms the laser's point beam into a linear beam spot. A motor then continuously rotates the carriage, causing the line to sweep through 360 degrees. This rapid rotation creates the visual effect of a large, solid, circular beam spot that can treat a wide area without requiring numerous laser sources or complex robotics ('067 Patent, col. 4:10-20; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanically simple and cost-effective mechanism for scanning a single laser source to cover a large, continuous treatment area automatically. ('067 Patent, col. 2:60-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A laser comprising:
      • a. at least one laser energy source for generating a laser beam; and
      • b. a scanning head further comprising:
        • i. a hollow spindle substantially coaxial with the laser beam and through which the laser beam is conveyed;
        • ii. a refractive optical element through which the laser beam is conveyed to produce a linear first beam spot whose centerpoint is along the axis of the hollow spindle;
        • iii. a rotatable carriage housing the optical element and through which the laser beam is conveyed and which, when rotated, creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot whose center is along the axis of the hollow spindle; and
        • iv. means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is a laser therapy system referred to as the "Accused Device" which Defendants allegedly market and sell for body contouring. (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Device is a "substantial cop[y]" of Plaintiff's "Emerald Laser" product and is promoted for non-invasive fat reduction (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 33.a). A screenshot from the VibraGenix website, included in the complaint, describes the "VibraGenix Green Laser" as a low-level light therapy using "532nm line-generating laser diodes to target the subcutaneous fat creating a transitory pore in the adipose fat cells" (Compl. ¶33.b). Other promotional materials cited in the complaint claim the treatment involves "NO DOWNTIME," "NO DISCOMFORT," and "No heating" (Compl. ¶¶ 33.a, 33.d). The complaint also includes several photographs of a disassembled device, purporting to show its internal components, including a light source, lenses, and a motor assembly (Compl. ¶46).

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 The Accused Device is alleged to use a "Green Laser" with "532nm line-generating laser diodes" for "subcutaneous fat loss." ¶33.b col. 3:19-22
having a wavelength shorter than 570 nm The laser is alleged to have a wavelength of 532 nm. A screenshot from the VibraGenix website states the device uses a "532nm" laser. ¶33.b col. 3:30-31
externally to the patient at a targeted area The device is alleged to be used for "targeted treatment for a slimmer, more sculpted appearance." ¶33.c col. 3:39-42
in a dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue Promotional materials for the Accused Device are alleged to state it involves "No heating and no freezing." ¶33.d col. 8:8-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The complaint relies on marketing claims like "No heating" to meet the "no detectable temperature rise" limitation. A central factual question will be whether the Accused Device, in operation, actually produces a temperature increase that would be detectable by standard scientific instrumentation.
  • Scope Question: The construction of "detectable" will be critical. The parties may dispute what level of temperature change, measured by what means, is sufficient to be "detectable" under the claim.

'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 provides a photograph of a disassembled device showing a component labeled "LIGHT SOURCE." ¶46.a col. 4:50-51
b. i. a hollow spindle substantially coaxial with the laser beam and through which the laser beam is conveyed The complaint includes diagrams and photos alleged to be from the Accused Device depicting a "hollow spindle." ¶46.b.i col. 4:66-68
b. ii. a refractive optical element ... to produce a linear first beam spot The complaint provides a photo showing a component labeled "LENS THAT TURNS LIGHT DOT INTO LIGHT LINE" and another showing the device emitting a green line of light. ¶46.b.ii col. 4:8-10
b. iii. a rotatable carriage ... which, when rotated, creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot A diagram in the complaint depicts a "LASER BEAM LINE - ROTATING 360° CREATING SCANNING LASER DEVICE VIA CIRCLE WITH LASER BEAM." ¶46.b.iii col. 4:12-17
b. iv. means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees The complaint provides photographs of a motor and gear assembly alleged to be the structure that performs the claimed function of rotation. ¶46.b.iv col. 4:21-24

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: The infringement allegations for the ’067 patent are heavily reliant on photographs of a single disassembled unit. A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can prove these photographs accurately represent the accused products sold by Defendants and that the components operate as described.
  • Scope Question (Means-Plus-Function): The limitation "means for continuously rotating" is a means-plus-function element. Infringement will require a two-part analysis: construing the function and then determining whether the accused structure (the motor and gears shown in Complaint ¶46.b.iv) is identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure described in the ’067 patent's specification, which is a "main drive motor 25" connected to a "main drive gear 82" and "minor drive gear 83" ('067 Patent, col. 4:21-24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from '650 Patent: "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central feature distinguishing the claimed method from prior art thermal/ablative laser treatments. It is the basis for the "non-invasive" and "non-traumatic" character of the invention. Proving infringement will hinge on demonstrating that the accused method meets this negative limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its verification is highly technical and fact-intensive, likely requiring expert analysis and testimony.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify a particular method or sensitivity for "detecting" a temperature rise, which could support an argument that only a macroscopically or clinically significant temperature increase falls outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes avoiding trauma and damage to tissue ('650 Patent, col. 2:30, 3:10-12), which could support a construction where "detectable" means any temperature increase measurable by reasonably available scientific instruments.

  • Term from '067 Patent: "refractive optical element"

    • Context and Importance: This is the key component that transforms the laser from a point source into a line, which is then rotated to create the large circular treatment area. The identity and function of this element are critical to the infringement analysis for the apparatus claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that while "A rod lens 33 is preferred as the optical element," a "prism or other optical element or combination thereof may suffice," suggesting the term is not limited to a specific type of lens. ('067 Patent, col. 4:8-10).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be limited by the embodiments shown, such as the rod lens in Figure 3, and attempt to distinguish the accused device's optical component as functionally different from the disclosed element.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement for both patents. It alleges Defendants contribute to infringement by selling the Accused Device to third parties for use in the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 44). It further alleges inducement by providing "instructions and advertisements actively encouraging" infringing use, and asserts that the Accused Device has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 44).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The allegations are based on purported pre-suit knowledge arising from discussions in January 2024, where Defendant Dr. Stites allegedly learned about Plaintiff's "patented products and methods" immediately before "engaging in the infringing conduct" (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 37, 49).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidence and reverse engineering: can Plaintiff successfully prove that the internal mechanics of the Accused Device, as depicted in its disassembly photographs, are representative of Defendants' commercial products and that they function in a way that maps onto the specific structural and functional limitations of the '067 patent's claims?
  • A key technical question will be one of functional effect: does the accused method, which uses a 532 nm green laser, operate at a "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise" as required by the '650 patent? The resolution will likely depend on expert testimony and the court's construction of "detectable."
  • The case may also turn on questions of intent and copying: given the allegations of pre-suit discussions followed by the marketing of a product described as a "substantial copy," a central issue will be whether Defendants’ conduct rises to the level of objective recklessness required for willful infringement and whether the case is "exceptional."