Tankovich, MD, PhD v. Candela Medical, Inc.

Case Summary

On November 29, 2021, Nikolai Tankovich, MD, PhD (“Dr. Tankovich” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Olga Berson of Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Candela Medical, Inc., formerly known as Candela Corporation, (“Candela”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief along with damages for Candela’s alleged infringement of the United States Patent owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California with Judge Autumn D. Spaeth presiding.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 10,675,481 (the “’481 Patent” or the “Asserted Patent”) owned by the Plaintiff.

In their complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “This case is about more than a patent for a laser skin treatment device – it is a classic David versus Goliath story. Candela, a multi-million-dollar international corporation, took advantage of and betrayed Dr. Tankovich, a prolific inventor in the field of medical laser applications, by deliberately misappropriating Dr. Tankovich’s new and patented laser skin treatment designs. Dr. Tankovich entered into two Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreements with Candela that were effective as of July 31, 2018 (the “NDAs”), one on behalf of Stemedica Cell Technologies, Inc. and one on behalf of Paradigm Medical Technologies Corporation. In March 2019, Candela provided Dr. Tankovich with a 20-page report summarizing the results of its testing of Dr. Tankovich’s laser system. The report was entitled “MultiFrax Laser System for Facial Rejuvenation Preliminary Evaluation” and was authored by Shlomo Assa (hereinafter “Evaluation Report”). “Accused Products” refers collectively to the Candela Frax Pro and Nordlys laser skin treatment devices.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Candela has directly infringed and is directly infringing at least claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the ʼ481 Patent by making, importing, using (including for testing or demonstrations), offering for sale, and/or selling the Accused Product in the United States all in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Cndela has indirectly infringed and is indirectly infringing at least claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the ʼ481 Patent by inducing end-users of the Accused Product in the United States to directly infringe in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Candela had actual notice of the ’481 Patent prior to the filing of the lawsuit, or, alternatively, by the filing of this lawsuit, yet, in spite of such notice, continued to willfully engage in infringing acts, which were egregious. Candela has engaged, and continues to engage, in unfair or unlawful business practices in California by breaching the NDAs and improperly misappropriating Dr. Tankovich’s confidential and proprietary information. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Dr Tankovich has suffered, and continues to suffer, injury in fact and has lost money, property, and/or goodwill.”

There are two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged deals with the infringement of the ’481 Patent. The second claim alleged deals with Unfair Competition – Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, Et Seq.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has directly infringed one or more claims of the ’481 Patent; to permanently enjoin Candela and its officers from further infringement, direct and indirect, of the Asserted Patent and from further unfair competition; and award the Plaintiff enhanced damages up to treble damages for Candela’s willful acts of infringement along with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.