PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1 of 9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

CHRISTINE LITTLE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

INMODE, LTD., INMODE MD, LTD., 

INVASIX, INC., and INVASIX, LTD., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Case No._____________________ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Plaintiff Christine Little (“Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Little”) files this her Original Complaint 

complaining of Defendants InMode, Ltd., InMode MD, Ltd., Invasix, Inc., and Invasix, Ltd., 

(together, “Defendants”) and respectfully shows the Court as follows: 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff Christine Little is a natural person and Texas citizen. She brings this claim 

in her individual capacity. 

2. Defendant InMode, Ltd. (“InMode”), is an Israeli limited partnership with its 

principal office in Israel and its North American head office in California. On information and 

belief, no members or partners of InMode are citizens of the State of Texas. InMode regularly 

conducts business in the State of Texas, including, but not limited to, its conduct relating to the 

subject incident. InMode, Ltd., may be served through its corporate officers, including Yair Malca 

and Shakil Lakhani, at 17 Hughes Irvine, California 92618, or wherever they may be found. 

3. Defendant InMode MD, Ltd. (“InMode MD”), is an Israeli limited partnership with 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2 of 9 

its principal office in Israel and its North American head office in California. On information and 

belief, no members or partners of InMode MD are citizens of the State of Texas. InMode MD 

regularly conducts business in the State of Texas, including, but not limited to, its conduct relating 

to the subject incident. InMode MD, Ltd., may be served through its corporate officers, including 

Yair Malca and Shakil Lakhani, at 17 Hughes Irvine, California 92618, or wherever they may be 

found.

4. Defendant Invasix, Inc. (“Invasix”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in California that is registered to conduct business in Texas and regularly 

conducts business in the State of Texas, including, but not limited to, its conduct relating to the 

subject incident. Invasix, Inc., may be served through its registered agent, C T Corporation System 

at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

5. Defendant Invasix, Ltd. (“Invasix Ltd.”), is an Israeli limited partnership with its 

principal office in Israel. On information and belief, no members or partners of Invasix Ltd. are 

citizens of the State of Texas. Invasix Ltd. regularly conducts business in the State of Texas, 

including, but not limited to, its conduct relating to the subject incident. Invasix Ltd., may be 

served through its corporate officers, including Yair Malca and Shakil Lakhani, at 17 Hughes 

Irvine, California 92618, or wherever they may be found.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because there is 

complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000. 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because their contacts with 

the State of Texas are such that exercising jurisdiction over them will not offend traditional notions 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3 of 9 

of fair play and substantive judgment. More specifically, these Defendants have purposefully 

availed themselves of the privileges of doing business in the State of Texas, employ Texas 

residents to carry out their business therein, and/or routinely conduct business in the State of Texas. 

Furthermore, these Defendants have committed torts in Texas and those contacts, and others, give 

rise to Plaintiff’s causes of action in this case. Venue is proper in this District because all or 

substantially all of the facts giving rise to this case occurred in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

8. For purposes of Plaintiff’s jurisdiction and venue facts, Plaintiff would specifically 

incorporate by reference, as if set forth in full, the factual background allegations asserted herein 

concerning Defendants. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. General Background 

9. Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the Evoke product, a 

hands-free facial treatment that delivers bipolar radiofrequency energy to the cheeks, neck, and 

jawline (the “Evoke”). 

10. Defendants sell the Evoke to physicians across the country through salespersons, 

several of whom are based in and operate out of Texas. Defendants also provide training to 

physicians that purchase the Evoke product on how to use the Evoke. 

11. In December 2020, Defendants sold an Evoke to Dr. Jason Riehs, which he received 

at his Frisco, Texas clinic in February 2021. Defendants assured Dr. Riehs that burn injuries were 

impossible with the Evoke. 

B. The Evoke Causes Third Degree Burns to Plaintiff Christine Little. 

12. On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff Christine Little was treated by Dr. Riehs at his clinic in 

Frisco using the Evoke product. During her treatment, the Evoke product failed causing the product 

to overheat, which resulted in third-degree burns to Mrs. Little’s face (the “Incident”). Upon 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4 of 9 

information and belief, the temperature regulation system and/or control module that controls the 

temperature for the 4th and 8th electrodes malfunctioned causing them to overheat and burn Plaintiff 

along her jaw bone. 

13. Dr. Riehs returned the Evoke product to Defendants and received a replacement 

shortly thereafter. A couple weeks later, a similar burn injury occurred on another patient. 

14. Mrs. Little sustained third degree, full thickness burns on her face as a result of the 

Incident. In addition to her physical injuries and permanent disfigurement, Mrs. Little has suffered 

pain, mental anguish, and trauma because of the Incident and ensuing injuries. 

15. Mrs. Little’s injuries and damages were caused by defects in the Evoke and/or 

Defendants’ failure to properly install, inspect, and test the Evoke upon arrival at Dr. Riehs’ clinic 

and/or train Dr. Riehs on the safe usage of the Evoke, or warn and instruct their clients as to the 

risks or dangers associated with using the Evoke. 

16. At all times material, all of the agents, servants, employees, officers, and directors 

of Defendants who were involved in or connected with the occurrence made the basis of this suit, 

were acting within the course and scope of their employment, acting in their official duties, and 

acting in furtherance of their office or employer. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT ONE: STRICT LIABILITY FOR DESIGN DEFECT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

17. Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes. 

18. Defendants are liable under the theory of strict liability as set forth in Restatement 

Second, Torts §§ 402A and 402B. Defendants, at all times material hereto, engaged in the business 

of designing, manufacturing, assembling, selling, marketing, and/or supplying the Evoke including 

the Evoke purchased by Dr. Riehs and used on Plaintiff made the basis of this lawsuit. 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5 of 9 

19. The subject Evoke was defective in design, unreasonably dangerous, and unsafe for 

its intended purpose because it did not provide adequate protection against the foreseeable risk of 

burn injury. The design defect includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

a. Failing to design and manufacture the Evoke with components capable of reliably 

regulating the foreseeable heat that could be generated by the Evoke; 

b. Failing to design and manufacture the Evoke with a failsafe that cut power to the 

Evoke when its temperature regulation system was not properly working; 

c. Failing to design and manufacture the Evoke with components that were not able 

to regulate the foreseeable heat that could be generated by the Evoke; 

d. Failing to design and manufacture the Evoke with components that were properly 

designed to regulate temperature as required by the Evoke; 

e. Failing to design and manufacture the Evoke with components that were properly 

tested for reliably regulating temperature as required by the Evoke; 

20. These defects rendered the Evoke unreasonably dangerous as designed taking into 

account the utility of the product and the risks involved. 

21. There was a safer alternative design that, in all reasonably probability, would have 

prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the injury in question without substantially impairing 

the Evoke’s utility. The alternative design was economically and technologically feasible at the 

time the Evoke left Defendants’ control. 

22. The defective condition of the Defendants’ Evoke sold to Dr. Riehs and used on 

Plaintiff was a producing and/or proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

COUNT TWO: STRICT LIABILITY FOR MANUFACTURING DEFECT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

23. Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes. 

24. Defendants are liable under the theory of strict liability as set forth in Restatement 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6 of 9 

Second, Torts §§ 402A and 402B. Defendants at all times material hereto engaged in the business 

of designing, manufacturing, assembling, selling, marketing, and/or supplying the Evoke including 

the Evoke purchased by Dr. Riehs and used on Plaintiff made the basis of this lawsuit. 

25. The subject Evoke deviated in its construction or quality in a manner that rendered 

it unreasonably dangerous when it was manufactured, marketed, sold, supplied, and/or installed 

by Defendants. 

26. The manufacturing defect rendered the Evoke dangerous beyond what an ordinary 

user of the Evoke, with ordinary knowledge common to the community, would have anticipated 

concerning the product’s characteristics. 

27. The defective condition of the Defendants’ Evoke sold to Dr. Riehs and used on 

Plaintiff was a producing and/or proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

COUNT THREE: STRICT LIABILITY FOR MARKETING DEFECT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

28. Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes. 

29. Defendants are liable under the theory of strict liability as set forth in Restatement 

Second, Torts §§ 402A and 402B. Defendants at all times material hereto engaged in the business 

of designing, manufacturing, assembling, selling, marketing, and/or supplying the Evoke including 

the Evoke purchased by Dr. Riehs and used on Plaintiff made the basis of this lawsuit. 

30. At the times the Evoke left Defendants’ possession, they knew or should have 

known of a risk of harm presented by the Evoke. 

31. Defendants marketed the Evoke without adequately warning of the danger or 

providing instructions for safe use. 

32. This marketing defect rendered the Evoke dangerous beyond what an ordinary user 

of the Evoke, with ordinary knowledge common to the community, would have anticipated 

concerning the product’s characteristics. 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7 of 9 

33. The defective condition of the Defendants’ Evoke sold to Dr. Riehs and used on 

Plaintiff was a producing and/or proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

COUNT FOUR: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS

34. Each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes. 

35. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligent acts 

and/or omissions of Defendants in their designing, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and/or sale 

of the subject Evoke, acting through its employees and agents, which are generally described 

herein. A non-exhaustive list of Defendants’ negligence includes, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

a. Failing to design and manufacture the Evoke with components capable of 

reliably regulating the foreseeable heat generated by the Evoke; 

b. Designing and manufacturing the Evoke with components that were not safely 

configured; 

c. Designing and manufacturing the Evoke with components that were not able to 

regulate the heat generated by the Evoke; 

d. Designing and manufacturing the Evoke with components that were defective; 

e. Failing to properly and adequately test the Evoke; 

f. Failing to incorporate a fail-safe design feature that accounts for failures 

involving the regulation of temperature in the Evoke and the ensuing hazards 

and/or harm that can occur as a result; 

g. Failing to provide appropriate and necessary instructional materials and 

reasonable warnings regarding the use of the Evoke in a fashion that would 

reduce or minimize the risk of severe burns and resultant injures; 

h. Failing to provide appropriate and necessary information, warnings and/or 

instructions regarding the fact that the Evoke could cause third degree burns; 

i. Failing to provide appropriate and necessary information, warnings, and/or 

instructions regarding the Evoke after Defendants had knowledge of other 

similar incidents; and 

j. Other acts of negligence that may be discovered during the course of the matter. 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 8 of 9 

36. Each of these acts and omissions by Defendants, singularly or in combination with 

others, constituted negligence that proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

COUNT FIVE: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

37. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated herein for all purposes. 

38. When viewed objectively, Defendants’ conduct, acts, and/or omissions as generally 

described above involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of 

the potential harm to others. Furthermore, Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk 

but proceeded with a conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. 

39. As such, Defendants’ conduct rises to the level of gross negligence, such that 

exemplary damages are warranted and appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

40. Plaintiff asserts her right under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 

and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by jury on all issues. 

DAMAGES 

41. The acts and practices of Defendants were a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries 

and damages as follows: 

a) Past medical expenses; 

b) Future medical expenses; 

c) Physical pain and suffering in the past; 

d) Physical pain and suffering in the future; 

e) Mental anguish in the past; 

f) Mental anguish in the future; 

g) Disfigurement in the past; 

h) Disfigurement in the future; and 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 9 of 9 

i) Economic loss. 

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 

42. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated herein for all purposes. 

43. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages resulted from Defendants’ gross negligence which 

entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 41.003(a)(3). 

PRAYER 

Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants be cited to answer and appear, and, that upon 

final trial, Plaintiff recover actual and punitive damages, as specified above, from Defendants, both 

jointly and severally, plus costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, 

and have such other and further relief, general and special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff 

may show herself justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LYONS & SIMMONS, LLP

_________________________________ 

Michael P. Lyons 

Texas Bar No. 24013074 

mlyons@lyons-simmons.com 

Michael S. Fechner, Jr. 

Texas Bar No. 24108166 

mfechner@lyons-simmons.com 

2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 665-6900 (t) 

(214) 665-6950 (f) 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 1 Filed 04/17/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9