DCT
4:25-cv-05093
Erchonia Corp LLC v. Vibragenix LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Erchonia Corporation LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: VibraGenix, LLC (Washington) and Dr. Caroline Stites (individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05093, E.D. Wash., 07/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Washington because Defendant VibraGenix is a Washington limited liability company with a regular and established place of business in the District, and Defendant Dr. Stites resides in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ low-level laser therapy devices and associated methods infringe two patents related to non-invasive body slimming and laser scanning apparatus technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for non-invasive aesthetic treatments, specifically body contouring and fat reduction, a significant segment of the wellness and medical aesthetics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Dr. Stites engaged in discussions with Plaintiff in January 2024 regarding Plaintiff's patented "Emerald Laser" products, during which she was allegedly provided information about the patented technology, shortly before Defendants began their allegedly infringing activities. This allegation is foundational to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-02 | Earliest Priority Date ('’067 Patent) |
| 2004-02-06 | Earliest Priority Date ('’650 Patent) |
| 2011-05-24 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,947,067) |
| 2015-10-06 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 9,149,650) |
| 2024-01-XX | Alleged pre-suit discussions between Plaintiff and 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 October 6, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the demand for targeted body contouring while avoiding the risks, recovery time, and tissue trauma associated with invasive surgical procedures like liposuction (’971 Patent, col. 1:31-54). It also confronts the prevailing belief within the LLLT field that laser wavelengths shorter than red light (~632 nm) would be ineffective for non-traumatic treatment due to poor skin penetration and the potential for tissue heating (’971 Patent, col. 2:31-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that uses monochromatic laser energy at wavelengths shorter than 632 nm (e.g., green or violet light) applied externally to a patient at a low "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue" (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:4-6). This approach was designed to achieve body slimming without the thermal damage or trauma previously associated with shorter, higher-energy wavelengths, effectively creating a non-destructive method for fat reduction (’971 Patent, col. 3:60-68).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method challenged the industry's conventional wisdom by demonstrating that shorter-wavelength lasers could be used for non-ablative, non-traumatic aesthetic treatments, expanding the spectrum of viable wavelengths for LLLT. (’971 Patent, col. 2:51-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key steps:
- 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 drawbacks with prior art laser therapy devices, noting that treating large areas either required expensive and complex arrays of many laser diodes or was tedious and imprecise when using manually operated, single-beam handheld devices (’067 Patent, col. 2:15-22; 35-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a scanning laser apparatus that uses a single laser source projecting a beam through a rotating head. The head contains a "refractive optical element" (such as a rod lens) that transforms the point of laser light into a line (’067 Patent, col. 4:8-10). By rotating this linear beam through 360 degrees, the device creates an "apparent solid circular" beam spot, which allows for the efficient and uniform treatment of a large surface area without requiring multiple lasers or manual scanning by a therapist (’067 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-20).
- Technical Importance: This design provided a mechanically simple and cost-effective solution for creating a large-area laser treatment field from a single, low-power source, improving upon the cost of multi-diode arrays and the imprecision of handheld wands (’067 Patent, col. 3:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a laser device comprising:
- At least one laser energy source for generating a laser beam.
- 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 complaint identifies the "Accused Device" as a laser therapy system marketed and sold by Defendants under names including the "VibraGenix Emerald Laser" and the "ReGenX Emerald Laser" (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Device is alleged to be a "substantial copy" of Plaintiff’s FDA-cleared Emerald Laser product (Compl. ¶23). It is marketed as a non-invasive, low-level light therapy (LLLT) device for "subcutaneous fat loss," "weight loss," and "targeted treatment" (Compl. ¶33.a, ¶33.c, PageID.10). Technical specifications promoted by Defendants, and cited in the complaint, state the device uses "532nm line-generating laser diodes" and operates with "No heating and no freezing," implying a non-thermal mechanism of action (Compl. ¶33.b, PageID.10; ¶33.d, PageID.11). The complaint further alleges, through detailed photographs of a disassembled unit, that the device's laser head contains components designed to convert a point of light into a line and rotate it to scan an area (Compl. ¶¶ 46.a-b). Defendants are alleged to sell the Accused Device to third-party wellness centers (Compl. ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of slimming a patient... | The accused services are marketed as a "non-invasive procedure to lose weight and reduce body fat." A social media post advertises "NON-INVASIVE FAT REDUCTION?" (Compl. ¶33.a, PageID.9). | ¶33.a | col. 3:12-20 |
| ...applying monochromatic laser energy having a wavelength shorter than 570 nm... | The Accused Device's website states it "uses 532nm line-generating laser diodes," which is a wavelength shorter than 570 nm. The website screenshot explicitly references "532nm" (Compl. ¶33.b, PageID.10). | ¶33.b | col. 3:17-18 |
| ...externally to the patient at a targeted area... | The device is advertised as offering "targeted treatment for a slimmer, more sculpted appearance." (Compl. ¶33.c, PageID.10). | ¶33.c | col. 3:14-16 |
| ...in a dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise of the treated tissue. | Marketing materials for a device alleged to be the Accused Device state that its advantages include "No heating and no freezing." (Compl. ¶33.d, PageID.11). | ¶33.d | col. 2:22-25 |
- 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 for the court will be whether the Accused Device, when operating as intended, actually produces a dose rate that causes no scientifically detectable temperature increase in the treated tissue.
- Scope Question: The claim requires "monochromatic" laser energy. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the light produced by the accused "532nm line-generating laser diodes" meets the technical definition of "monochromatic" as that term is construed in the context of the patent.
’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 an exploded-view photograph of the accused laser head, identifying a component as the "LIGHT SOURCE" (Compl. ¶46.a, PageID.15). | ¶46.a | col. 3:49-50 |
| b. i. a hollow spindle substantially coaxial with the laser beam and through which the laser beam is conveyed; | Photographs show the laser head's internal components, including a structure alleged to be the hollow spindle through which the laser passes (Compl. ¶46.b.i, PageID.16). | ¶46.b.i | col. 4:1-3 |
| b. ii. a refractive optical element...to produce a linear first beam spot... | Photographs and diagrams show a lens that allegedly "TURNS LIGHT DOT INTO LIGHT LINE" and the resulting linear green beam produced by the device (Compl. ¶46.a, PageID.15; ¶46.b.ii, PageID.17). | ¶46.b.ii | col. 4:8-10 |
| b. iii. a rotatable carriage housing the optical element...which, when rotated, creates an apparent solid circular second beam spot... | Photographs of the assembled laser head and a diagram illustrate how the 360-degree rotation of the linear beam creates a circular scanning area (Compl. ¶46.b.iii, PageID.18). | ¶46.b.iii | col. 4:10-16 |
| b. iv. means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees. | Photographs depict the motor and wiring assembly that allegedly constitutes the means for rotating the carriage (Compl. ¶46.b.iv, PageID.19). | ¶46.b.iv | col. 4:21-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1 includes the term "means for continuously rotating the carriage," which is a means-plus-function limitation. Its scope is restricted to the corresponding structure disclosed in the '067 patent specification—a drive assembly comprising a main drive gear, a minor drive gear, and a motor—and its structural equivalents (’067 Patent, col. 4:21-28). The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused device's drive mechanism is structurally equivalent to this specific disclosed configuration.
- Technical Question: The complaint alternatively pleads infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, suggesting a potential dispute over literal infringement (Compl. ¶47). A key factual issue may be whether the accused device's rotation is fast and continuous enough to create an "apparent solid circular" spot, as claimed, or if it produces a visually distinct rotating line or a flickering, non-solid circle.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
From the ’971 Patent:
- The Term: "dose rate that causes no detectable temperature rise" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the patent's asserted point of novelty: achieving slimming without thermal tissue damage. The construction of "detectable" will define the boundary between an infringing non-thermal process and a non-infringing thermal one. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity—whether "detectable" implies by human sensation, standard clinical tools, or sensitive laboratory instruments—creates a clear point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the effect in practical terms, stating the treatment results in "no macroscopically visible changes in tissue structure" and the tissue is "not heated and is not damaged" (’067 Patent, col. 1:39-43, incorporated by reference). This may support a construction where "detectable" refers to a temperature rise that is clinically significant or perceptible, rather than any infinitesimal increase.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the word "detectable" without qualification. A party could argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any temperature rise measurable by any available scientific instrument, however sensitive.
From the ’067 Patent:
- The Term: "means for continuously rotating the carriage through 360 degrees" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function term, its scope is not its literal meaning but is defined by the structure disclosed in the specification for performing that function. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this element will depend entirely on a comparison between the accused device's structure and the patent's disclosed structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Equivalents): The function is "continuously rotating." A party could argue that any motor-driven system that achieves continuous 360-degree rotation performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result, and thus should be considered an equivalent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Specific Structure): The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a specific drive assembly with a "main drive gear 82 which is mated with a minor drive gear 83" driven by a "main drive motor 25" (’067 Patent, col. 4:21-25). A party will argue that the scope is limited to this specific two-gear configuration and its direct structural equivalents, and that a device with a different drive mechanism (e.g., a direct-drive motor or a belt-drive system) is not structurally equivalent and therefore does not infringe.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendants provide the Accused Device to third parties (e.g., wellness centers) with instructions and advertisements that encourage its use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 36, 44). The complaint also alleges the Accused Device has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 44).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents, based on alleged pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 49). The complaint asserts that Defendant Dr. Stites had actual knowledge of Plaintiff's patents and products from direct discussions with Plaintiff in January 2024, immediately prior to commencing the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23). This allegation of "egregious" conduct forms the primary basis for the request for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of willfulness and intent: The complaint's allegation that Defendants learned about Plaintiff's patented technology through direct business inquiries and then promptly launched a "substantial copy" will be a focal point. The case may turn on the evidence surrounding these alleged pre-suit interactions and whether they are sufficient to prove the "egregious" conduct required for enhanced damages.
- For the '650 patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of operational effect: Can Plaintiff produce technical evidence, beyond the marketing materials cited, to prove that the accused method operates at a dose rate that causes "no detectable temperature rise"? The resolution of this factual dispute is critical to the infringement analysis.
- For the '067 patent, the case will likely hinge on a question of structural equivalence: Does the drive mechanism in the accused laser head constitute an equivalent to the specific two-gear-and-motor assembly disclosed in the patent specification? This highly technical inquiry, governed by the rules of means-plus-function claim construction, will be a primary battleground for infringement.