Palomar vs. Candela: Laser Battle Heats Up

A Texas jury has found that Palomar’s products do not infringe on a Candela patent.

Candela had accused eight Palomar handpieces of infringing on three Candela Patents. Curiously, just days before the start of trial, Candela dropped its accusations against Palomar’s LuxB, LuxY, LuxYs, and LuxG handpieces.

When Candela went to trial, the only accusation related to patent 5,810,801. The company had significantly reduced the amount of damages it was seeking.

Patent 5,810,801 is a method for treating wrinkles in skin using a wave laser or incoherent radiation. The method comprises generating a beam of radiation, directing the beam of radiation below a wrinkle in the skin, and thermally injuring collagen in the targeted region. The method may also include cooling the skin above the targeted region prior to thermally injuring collagen.

The jury found Palomar’s products to be non-infringing and the patent claims at issue to be invalid. Palomar’s CEO, Joseph Caruso, commented,

“Candela has admitted that it brought the lawsuit in Texas in retaliation for the hair removal lawsuit. In this just completed Texas trial, Candela’s corporate representative testified under oath that the demand for hair removal was far greater than the demand for any other laser treatment. We agree. That trial is not yet scheduled but we expect the trial to take place next year.”

Palomar’s lawsuit against Candela relates to the infringement of certain hair removal patents.

Previously: Laser Battle Reaches Fever Pitch [Diomed vs. Total Vein Solutions, Diomed vs. AngioDynamics and Vascular Solutions, Diomed vs. AngioDynamics (Round 2), VNUS Medical vs. Diomed, AngioDynamics and Vascular Solutions]

The comments are closed.