Erchonia v. Ohana MedSpas: Emerald Laser Patent Dispute Settled in 230 Days
Erchonia Corporation, holder of key low-level laser therapy patents, filed suit against Ohana MedSpas in Hawaii over the Green Lipo Laser system — also marketed as Maxlipo Master — alleging infringement of two patents covering non-invasive fat reduction and related treatments. The case settled confidentially within 230 days, with all trial dates vacated and settlement terms sealed by court order.
Emerald Laser IP clash ends in sealed settlement in Hawaii
Erchonia Corporation LLC, a medical device company and holder of US7947067B2 and US9149650B2, filed this infringement action against Ohana MedSpas LLC in the District of Hawaii on April 26, 2024. The patents-in-suit cover low-level laser therapy technologies applied to non-invasive fat removal, cellulite reduction, pain relief, and fungal nail treatment — the core claims behind Erchonia’s flagship Emerald laser platform. Ohana MedSpas was alleged to have deployed the competing Green Lipo Laser system, also marketed as Maxlipo Master, in its medspa operations.
The case closed on December 12, 2024, via confidential settlement confirmed on the record before the court. The judge recited the material and essential terms, and both parties — individually and through counsel — confirmed their consent. The court found those terms binding and enforceable. Critically, the settlement terms were ordered sealed, the hearing record impounded, and all trial dates and pre-trial deadlines vacated. The precise financial or licensing terms are not part of the public record.
At 230 days, the timeline is consistent with a case that reached resolution before significant discovery or claim construction activity, suggesting the parties may have found commercial common ground relatively early. Whether the settlement involved a licensing arrangement, cessation of the allegedly infringing product’s use, or monetary compensation cannot be determined from public filings. The confidential nature of the resolution leaves open the question of whether Ohana MedSpas continues to operate any low-level laser therapy devices going forward.
Filing to Case Settled in 230 days
230 days — faster than the median patent case in D. Hawaii, suggesting early settlement momentum
Confidential settlement: what the sealed resolution means for both parties
Settlement confirmed on the record — binding without a merits ruling
The court confirmed the settlement by reciting essential terms in open proceedings, with both parties and counsel consenting on the record. This creates a binding and enforceable agreement without any finding of patent validity, invalidity, or infringement. Crucially, all terms were then sealed, meaning the public record contains no insight into financial consideration, licensing scope, or operational restrictions on either party.
No merits adjudicationErchonia secures a confidential resolution — patent validity preserved
For Erchonia, a sealed settlement typically signals enforcement leverage: the patents-in-suit were never invalidated and no adverse claim construction was entered. US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 remain fully enforceable assets. The confidentiality of terms may suggest a licensing component or an agreement to cease use of the allegedly infringing Maxlipo Master system — but neither can be confirmed from the public record.
Patents remain enforceableOhana MedSpas resolves exposure without a public infringement finding
For Ohana MedSpas, settlement avoids a potentially damaging public finding of patent infringement, an injunction, and the risk of enhanced damages. The sealed terms mean no public admission of wrongdoing. However, any ongoing operational restrictions — such as whether the Green Lipo Laser or Maxlipo Master system can continue to be used — are unknown. Medspa operators in similar positions should treat this outcome as a signal that Erchonia actively enforces its LLLT portfolio.
No public infringement findingErchonia’s enforcement posture strengthens across the LLLT medspa sector
This settlement, combined with Erchonia’s history of patent enforcement, suggests a deliberate strategy to protect the Emerald laser’s market position against low-level laser therapy competitors targeting the non-invasive body contouring segment. Medspa operators and device distributors deploying competing LLLT platforms — particularly those marketed for fat reduction — should assess their FTO position against Erchonia’s portfolio before commercial deployment or expansion.
LLLT sector enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Erchonia Corporation LLC | Company | Medical device company — holder of US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 (Emerald laser LLLT patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ohana MedSpas, LLC | Company | Hawaii-based medspa operator alleged to use Green Lipo Laser / Maxlipo Master systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett R. Tobin | Attorney | Counsel for Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott W. Dangler | Attorney | Counsel for Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Scott W. Dangler, P.A. | Law Firm | Representing Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP | Law Firm | Representing Erchonia Corporation LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Kelly | Attorney | Counsel for Ohana MedSpas, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Starn O’Toole Marcus and Fisher | Law Firm | Representing Ohana MedSpas, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Hawaii District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s on-record confirmation that ‘essential terms of a binding and enforceable settlement have been set forth’ is a standard judicial mechanism for locking in settlement before formal documentation is exchanged. The immediate sealing of terms and transcript is atypical in degree, suggesting the parties placed significant commercial value on confidentiality. Importantly, the verdict contains no finding on patent validity or infringement — leaving both patents legally intact and Erchonia’s enforcement position unchanged for future actions.
US7947067B2 & US9149650B2 — Low-level laser therapy for non-invasive body treatment
US7947067B2 (application no. 11/409408) and US9149650B2 (application no. 14/336401) both cover low-level laser therapy (LLLT) technology — a non-thermal, non-invasive photobiomodulation approach applied to adipose tissue disruption, cellulite reduction, pain management, and fungal nail treatment. These patents underpin Erchonia’s Emerald laser, the company’s flagship FDA-cleared LLLT platform. The continuation relationship between the two applications suggests a deliberate patent family strategy designed to extend claim coverage across evolving product generations.
LLLT for aesthetic and therapeutic medspa applications is a fast-growing commercial segment, with multiple competing devices — including diode-based and green-wavelength laser systems — entering the non-invasive body contouring market. Erchonia’s two-patent assertion in this case reflects the strategic value of stacking related claims across a portfolio to maximise enforcement breadth. For competitors, the overlap between fat reduction, pain relief, and fungal nail treatment claims means that even devices targeting only one indication may fall within the aggregate claim scope of this family.
Should you run an FTO against US7947067B2 and US9149650B2?
Any company developing, distributing, or operating low-level laser therapy devices for non-invasive fat reduction, cellulite treatment, pain relief, or fungal nail applications in the US market should treat these two patents as priority FTO targets. The Hawaii settlement demonstrates that Erchonia enforces at the operator level — meaning medspa operators, not just device OEMs, face direct exposure. If you are commercialising a green-wavelength or diode LLLT platform with overlapping indications, an FTO analysis is not optional.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their device’s technical specifications and therapeutic indications against the full Erchonia patent family in minutes — surfacing relevant prior art, claim-level overlap risks, and related family members across jurisdictions. Start with US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 as seed patents, then use Eureka to identify continuation applications, divisionals, and international equivalents that may extend enforcement risk beyond the US.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7947067B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LLLT and non-invasive laser therapy patent cases in US district courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving low-level laser therapy and non-invasive body contouring technology litigated in US district courts, including D. Hawaii.
What this case signals for the non-invasive laser therapy IP landscape
Erchonia’s suit against a single medspa operator is part of a broader pattern of portfolio enforcement in the competitive LLLT body contouring market.
Erchonia actively enforces LLLT patents at the operator level — not just distributors
Filing against a medspa end-user rather than solely a device manufacturer or distributor signals that Erchonia’s enforcement strategy reaches the point of commercial use. Medspa operators deploying third-party laser systems for fat reduction or body contouring face direct infringement exposure, regardless of their equipment supplier’s representations about IP clearance.
Confidential settlement preserves Erchonia’s patents for future enforcement actions
Because no invalidity finding or adverse claim construction was entered, US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 exit this case with their enforceability intact. Erchonia retains the ability to assert the same patents against other LLLT competitors or operators. Any company in this space should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and conduct formal FTO analysis before product launch or service expansion.
Erchonia v Ohana — key questions answered
Erchonia asserted US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 — both covering low-level laser therapy technology for non-invasive applications including fat removal, cellulite reduction, pain relief, and fungal nail treatment. These patents underpin the Emerald laser platform. The case was filed in the District of Hawaii on April 26, 2024.
The Green Lipo Laser system, also marketed as Maxlipo Master, is a competing non-invasive low-level laser therapy device alleged by Erchonia to infringe its patents when used by Ohana MedSpas for fat loss treatments. The public record does not contain a merits ruling, so no finding of infringement was formally entered. The case settled confidentially before trial.
The case settled on December 12, 2024, with the court confirming essential settlement terms on the record as binding and enforceable. However, the court ordered all settlement terms to remain confidential and sealed the hearing transcript. The specific financial, licensing, or operational terms are not part of the public record and cannot be independently verified.
No. Because the case settled before any claim construction or merits adjudication, no invalidity finding was entered. Both US7947067B2 and US9149650B2 remain fully enforceable. The settlement does not constitute any admission by either party regarding patent validity or infringement scope, and Erchonia retains the right to assert these patents in future actions.
This case signals that Erchonia is willing to enforce its LLLT patents directly against end-user operators — not only against device manufacturers or distributors. Medspa operators deploying competing low-level laser therapy systems for fat reduction, cellulite, or related indications should seek independent FTO analysis and ensure their equipment suppliers provide adequate IP indemnification before commercial use.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.