IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D.N.Y.: Maker of hydradermabrasion skincare device did not infringe competitor’s patent, (Jun 8, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Despite disputes over the meaning of the patent claim term “manifold,” there was no admissible evidence in the record to show that the accused product actually possessed one.

The owner of a patent for a hydrodermabrasion skincare treatment device failed to produce any evidence from which a jury could find infringement by a competing skincare device seller, the U.S. District Court in Central Islip has held. The parties spent substantial time arguing over the definition of a “manifold” in the context of the asserted patent, but the patentee failed to produce evidence showing that the accused product contained a manifold under any definition (Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, June 6, 2023, Brown, G.).

Edge Systems, LLC (Edge) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 (the ’052 patent) which claimed a skincare device that applied treatment fluid to the skin while simultaneously suctioning away waste from the skin surface. Edge brought suit against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC (Cartessa), claiming that Cartessa’s “Skinwave” product infringed the ’052 patent, among others. Edge moved for summary judgment against Cartessa’s argument on the invalidity of the ’052 patent and both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of infringement of that patent.

Invalidity. Cartessa argued that claim 1 of the ’052 patent was anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,162,232 (the ’232 patent), also owned by Edge. Edge sought summary judgment of no invalidity. Edge argued that the ’052 patent differed from the ’232 patent by its inclusion of a “manifold limitation” referring to a component where multiple fluids were mixed before being sprayed out of the device. The court found that Cartessa failed to show the existence of a manifold in the ’232 patent, and so summary judgment of non-invalidity was granted.

Infringement. The question of infringement also hinged on the manifold limitation. Cartessa argued that the Edge’s expert designated a small box within the accused product as a manifold without actually examining its interior structure and merely speculated that the box constituted a manifold, while Cartessa’s expert described the box as a matrix or line of solenoid valves that did not function as a manifold. Long after the close of discovery, Edge filed a supplemental expert declaration containing what appeared to be new examination by its expert. This untimely filing was not considered by the court.

The court held that without admissible evidence containing anything more than speculation and conclusory statements that the accused product contained a manifold, no matter how the word was defined, no reasonable juror could find that the accused product infringed the manifold limitation. Cartessa’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted, and Edge’s motion for summary judgment of infringement was denied.

The Case is No. 20-CV-6082.

Attorneys: Sean M. Murray (Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP) for Edge Systems LLC. Steven P. Tepera (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) for Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC.

Companies: Edge Systems LLC; Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews