StageAcquired | Acquired
Ulthera develops and markets medical devices that leverage the proven power and safety of ultrasound for rejuvenation of the skin and its support structure. Ultherapy treatments enable dermatologists, plastic surgeons and facial plastic surgeons, for a time, to non-invasively see and treat deep below the skin, resulting in precision and predictability.
Missing: Ulthera's Product Demo & Case Studies
Promote your product offering to tech buyers.
Reach 1000s of buyers who use CB Insights to identify vendors, demo products, and make purchasing decisions.
Missing: Ulthera's Product & Differentiators
Don’t let your products get skipped. Buyers use our vendor rankings to shortlist companies and drive requests for proposals (RFPs).
Expert Collections containing Ulthera
Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.
Ulthera is included in 1 Expert Collection, including Medical Devices.
Companies that have been granted at least 1 510(k) by the FDA since 2014. Companies tagged as #FDA510(K)
Ulthera has filed 60 patents.
The 3 most popular patent topics include:
- Plastic surgery
- Medical ultrasonography
- Medical equipment
Plastic surgery, Graphical user interface elements, Cosmetics, Cosmetic surgery, Medical ultrasonography
Plastic surgery, Graphical user interface elements, Cosmetics, Cosmetic surgery, Medical ultrasonography
Latest Ulthera News
Feb 3, 2023
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=007f5230-f561-4bd8-8202-adff06afaec3" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> [author: Lili WAN] Punitive damage is a special form of civil liability, which could achieve the purpose of punishment while making up for losses. On 3 March 2021, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation”). Clarifying the judicial application of punitive damages will help to be more targeted when claiming punitive damages. Application Requirements Determination of Intent to Infringe The Civil Code stipulates that the subjective element of punitive damages is “intentional”, and the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulate that it is “bad faith”. In practice, it is difficult to strictly distinguish between “intentional” and “bad faith”, so the Interpretation has reconciled the interpretation of “intentional” and “bad faith” in order to prevent the misunderstanding that “bad faith” is applied to trademarks and unfair competition, while “intentional” is applied to other intellectual property fields. As a subjective state, intent often needs to be determined through the objective performance of the infringer. Article 3 of the Interpretation provides guidance on the factors to be considered in the determination of “intentional” and lists six (6) situations in which intent to infringe intellectual property rights can be preliminarily determined. In short, when the defendant is clearly informed of the existence of the involved intellectual property right, or that the defendant is closely related to the plaintiff, or that the involved intellectual property right enjoys a high reputation and the defendant should have known of the existence of the intellectual property right, in the circumstance that the defendant still conducts infringing act, it will be preliminarily found to have the intent to infringe. For example, in the trademark infringement dispute between OPPLE and Hua Sheng, the court pointed out that Hua Sheng, as an operator in the same industry, it clearly knew that OPPLE and its trademark enjoyed a high popularity and reputation, and knew that its trademark application for “欧普特 (Ou Pu Te, which only differs from the Chinese for OPPLE “欧普 (Ou Pu)” in the last character “特 (Te)” which means “very, special” and is of low distinctiveness) with respect to lamps has been rejected, it still deliberately registered the trademark “欧普特 (Ou Pu Te”) in other classes and used it on lamp goods. It produced and sold the infringing products in large quantities, and the product quality was unqualified. Its subjective malice in infringing OPPLE’s trademark right was obvious and the circumstances were serious. As such, punitive damages should apply. For another example, in the case of ULTHERA, Inc. v. Ke Pai Ltd. in a trademark infringement dispute, the alleged infringer had been administratively punished by the Administration of Industry and Commerce for intentionally infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the right holder. Afterwards, the two parties reached a settlement. However, Ke Pai was again found to have committed the involved infringing act, and that the trademarks and products of the rights holder were imitated as they were. Accordingly, the court found that the defendant’s acts met the application requirements of “bad faith” for punitive damages. Determination of Serious Circumstances The seriousness of the circumstances is mainly aimed at objective aspects such as the means and methods of the actor and the consequences it causes, and generally does not involve the subjective state of the actor. Article 4 of the Interpretation also provides guidance on the determination of “serious circumstances” from two aspects, i.e., general factors for consideration and common typical situations. “Serious circumstances” is based on the consequences of infringement. On the one hand, it is necessary to consider not only the consequences of specific material damage, but also the losses caused by the wrongful act to the right holder that are abstract and difficult to calculate, such as the significant reduction of the market value of the patent due to infringement and the damage to the goodwill of the right holder; On the other hand, it is necessary to consider not only the consequences of the damage caused by the infringement to the right holder, but also the negative impact of the infringement on the relevant industry and social public order. For example, in the aforementioned case of ULTHERA, Inc. v. Ke Pai Ltd. for trademark infringement, the court, in discussing the grounds for constituting “serious circumstances” in this case, in addition to the huge amount of sales, it also considered about the fact that the infringing product may endanger human health as it is directly used on the human faces. Calculation of the Amount of Punitive Damages Determining the basis for punitive damages is key to calculating the amount of punitive damages. The Interpretation provides guidance on the judicial application of punitive damages from the following aspects: First, the basis of punitive damages is the actual amount of losses of the plaintiff, the defendant’s profits from the infringement or multiples of royalties, and unless otherwise provided by law, the compensation base generally does not include reasonable expenses. Second, the specific determination of the compensation basis should be in accordance with the relevant applicable law. Third, the rule of proof of obstructive practices may apply to the determination of the compensation basis. From a practical point of view, the difficulty in determining the compensation basis lies in its calculation and proof standard. In specific cases, there is often a lack of direct evidence in support of the number of products, the specific profit or profit margin of a single product, making it difficult to accurately quantify the calculation of the amount of compensation. Therefore, the courts actively advocates the determination of damages through the application of discretionary methods, but the application of discretionary compensation methods still requires the use of certain calculation methods. Whether calculating the loss of the right holder or the infringement profit of the infringer, it is inseparable from the consideration of the reasonable profit of the genuine intellectual property product or the infringing product. The determination of reasonable profit should consider the sales price, profit margin and intellectual property contribution rate of the product, and these elements usually require the two parties to thoroughly compete through evidence and cross-examination to determine a reasonable ratio. For example, in the case of Adidas v. RUAN Guoqiang, etc. over a trademark infringement dispute, the court selected the unit price of CNY 89 (approx. USD 13.1) per pair of genuine shoes as the basis for calculation, accepted the gross profit margin of 50.4% shown in the 2017 accounting statements provided by Adidas, and determined the 6,050 pairs of uppers seized by Zheng Bang Company for the third time as sales volume. Considering that the allegedly infringing products were all uppers products, not finished shoes, and could not be directly used in the consumer field, the court deducted 40% as appropriate. In the end, the compensation amount of CNY 1,037,337.84 (approx. USD 152,713.56) was determined by three times of the economic loss CNY 345,779.28 (approx. USD 50,904.54) of Adidas. With regards to the multiple of punitive damages, the law stipulates the multiple ranges of punitive damages. When the court determines the multiple of punitive damages in accordance with the law, it usually needs to comprehensively consider factors such as the degree of subjective fault of the infringer and the seriousness of the circumstances of the infringement. For example, in the case of Huawei v. LIU (an individual) over trademark infringement, the court comprehensively considered factors such as the nature, circumstances, and obvious subjective intent of LIU, and determined the amount of compensation to be CNY 565,560 (approx. USD 83,259.97) based on twice of the profits from infringement. In addition, it should be noted that punitive damages, as a special right to claim compensation, are applied on the premise of the parties’ request. The implementation of punitive damages is tantamount to a “tightening curse” for repeat infringers, making infringers so painful that they dare not commit again, and even causing small businesses to go directly to bankruptcy. In their business activities, enterprises should respect intellectual property rights, pay attention to improving the quality of their own products. An opportunistic attempt to take shortcuts by obtaining illegal profits by infringing on the intellectual property rights of others is never advisable. 【Case Source】
Ulthera Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
When was Ulthera founded?
Ulthera was founded in 2004.
Where is Ulthera's headquarters?
Ulthera's headquarters is located at 2150 South Country Club Drive, Mesa.
What is Ulthera's latest funding round?
Ulthera's latest funding round is Acquired.
How much did Ulthera raise?
Ulthera raised a total of $38.56M.
Who are the investors of Ulthera?
Investors of Ulthera include Merz Therapeutics, New Enterprise Associates, Apposite Capital, 3i Group and Ardent Sound.
Who are Ulthera's competitors?
Competitors of Ulthera include Integrated Nano-Technologies, iMMCO Diagnostics, ContraVac, Novadaq Technologies, Advanced Cell Diagnostics and 11 more.
Compare Ulthera to Competitors
Affinergy develops site-specific biological delivery systems using biofriendly binders that can selectively adhere to proteins, cells and other biomaterial surfaces. Affinergy's multifunctional delivery systems offer unprecedented opportunities to target therapeutic delivery, functionalize medical devices, and enable a variety of diagnostic and biosensor applications. Affinergy is a Duke University spin-out company being incubated by BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company) and is headquartered in Research Triangle Park, NC. IDEA Fund Partners was an investor in the company's Series A financing.
Akonni Biosystems is a molecular diagnostics (MDx) company that develops, manufactures, and markets integrated molecular diagnostic systems.
Mimosa Acoustics, Inc. was created in 1994 by Dr. Patricia Jeng. The company was formed to take advantage of research done on cochlear nonlinearity by the Acoustics Research Group of Bell Laboratories from 1985-1992. Mimosa manufactures and distributes a portable Otoacoustic Emission System that is FDA-approved for testing the inner-ear function of infants, but can also be used in hearing screening research. Mimosa plans to expand its market based on planned research into testing of middle-ear function.
IMMCO Diagnostics provides high-quality diagnostic test kits and lab testing services worldwide for the screening of autoimmune disorders. IMMCO Diagnostics incorporates working on research, clinical laboratory expertise, and medical devices into an approach to autoimmune diagnostics.
Focal develops, manufactures and commercializes synthetic, absorbable, liquid surgical sealants based on the company's polymer technology. The company's FocalSeal-L and FocalSeal-S surgical sealant products are currently being developed for use inside the body to seal leaks resulting from lung, neurological, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal surgery.
NOVX Systems is a medical device company that is combing expertise in photonics, engineering, polymer chemistry, physics, molecular biology and data management, to create solutions for office-based patient testing.
Discover the right solution for your team
The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.