DCT
2:23-cv-03497
BTL Industries Inc v. La Curves Body Sculpting LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: LA Curves Body Sculpting LLC (California); Anais Larios (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Payne & Fears LLP; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-03497, C.D. Cal., 11/16/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both the corporate and individual defendants are residents of the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ magnetic muscle stimulation devices, used for non-invasive body contouring, infringe a patent related to methods for cooling the device’s electromagnetic coil.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-intensity electromagnetic devices used in the aesthetic medicine market for muscle toning and fat reduction, a field that has seen significant growth.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants on December 14, 2022, and subsequent correspondence followed, putting Defendants on actual notice of the asserted patent and alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-01 | ’519 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-05-02 | ’519 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff BTL launches EMSCULPT® device in U.S. (approx. date) |
| 2021-02-10 | Defendant LA Curves files articles of organization |
| 2022-11-10 | Defendants begin advertising training for accused devices (at least as early as) |
| 2022-11-30 | Defendants' infringing sales begin (at least as early as, approx. date) |
| 2022-12-14 | Plaintiff sends first cease and desist letter to Defendants |
| 2023-11-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519 - "Magnetic Stimulation Methods and Devices for Therapeutic Treatments"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of low efficiency and excessive heat generation in magnetic stimulation devices used for therapy (Compl. Ex. D, ’519 Patent, col. 6:39-49). Existing devices use coils that generate significant "eddy currents," which produce unwanted heat, limiting the devices' power and the repetition rate of magnetic pulses, and often requiring interruptions in therapy to prevent overheating (’519 Patent, col. 6:44-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device with an improved coil and cooling system. The coil is constructed from multiple, individually insulated small-diameter wires to reduce internal eddy currents and self-heating (’519 Patent, col. 6:57-61). To further manage heat, the device uses a casing and at least one blower specifically arranged to ensure a cooling fluid (e.g., air) can flow directly over the upper and lower sides of the coil, thereby increasing the efficiency of heat dissipation (’519 Patent, col. 7:4-29; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to enable higher repetition rates and "continual therapy" without the device exceeding operational temperature limits, a significant improvement for therapeutic applications requiring sustained use (’519 Patent, col. 6:28-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A magnetic stimulation device for treatment
- Comprising a connection to an energy source, a switch, a coil, an energy storage device, at least one blower, and a casing
- The blower is arranged "on a circumference of the coil"
- The coil and casing are arranged so that fluid can flow between them
- The coil is cooled by this fluid flow over "at least upper and lower sides of the coil"
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Defendants' "Infringing Devices," including devices marketed as "EMS SLIMPRO" and under the name "EMS Sculpting" (Compl. ¶¶25, 33). These devices are advertised for non-invasive body contouring and muscle building (Compl. ¶¶29, 31). Exemplary images of the accused devices are provided in the complaint (Compl. ¶25, p. 12).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused devices are alleged to be "magnetic muscle stimulation devices" that generate a time-varying magnetic field to induce muscle contractions (Compl. ¶¶31, 43). The complaint alleges these devices include an applicator with a coil and a blower for cooling, as evidenced by visible "air vents in the applicators and the space for internal fans" (Compl. ¶31). Defendants are alleged to have advertised their devices as achieving the same results as Plaintiff's clinically studied EMSCULPT® product and offered them for sale and for training services (Compl. ¶¶28-29). An advertisement for an accused device, showing the main unit and multiple applicator wands, lists a price of $2,800 (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’519 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A magnetic stimulation device producing a time varying magnetic field for treatment, comprising: | Defendants' devices are alleged to be magnetic stimulation devices that produce a time varying magnetic field for aesthetic treatment. | ¶¶31, 43 | col. 6:26-34 |
| a connection to an energy source, a switch, a coil, an energy storage device, at least one blower and a casing; | The devices are alleged to include these components. An image from Defendants' social media shows applicators (casings) with visible air vents, which Plaintiff alleges are for cooling the internal coil with a blower. | ¶¶31, 43 | col. 6:35-38 |
| with the blower arranged on a circumference of the coil; | The complaint alleges the infringing devices contain a blower that cools the coil inside the applicator and that this element is met. | ¶¶31, 43 | col. 7:20-22 |
| and wherein the coil and the casing are arranged in a manner that fluid can flow in-between them | The complaint alleges that air vents visible on the applicators and space for internal fans allow fluid to flow between the coil and the casing. | ¶¶31, 43 | col. 7:16-20 |
| and wherein the coil is cooled by fluid flow over at least upper and lower sides of the coil. | The airflow created by the blower and directed through the vents is alleged to cool both the upper and lower sides of the coil. | ¶¶31, 43 | col. 7:22-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: A primary issue may be whether the internal structure of the accused applicators meets the specific spatial limitations of claim 1. The complaint alleges infringement but provides only external images of the applicators, such as an Instagram post showing the devices in use (Compl. ¶31, p. 15). The precise location of the blower "on a circumference of the coil" and the specific path of fluid flow "over at least upper and lower sides of the coil" are factual questions that will depend on evidence obtained through discovery.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "on a circumference of the coil" may be a central dispute. The question is whether this requires a specific geometric arrangement, as depicted in the patent's Figure 2, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any configuration where a blower is located generally around the perimeter of the coil assembly.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "arranged on a circumference of the coil"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the spatial relationship between the cooling source (the blower) and the heat source (the coil). The infringement analysis for claim 1 may turn on whether the accused devices, whose internal design is not detailed in the complaint, have a blower in this specific location. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "at least one blower 13 can be placed around the circumference of the coil, or perpendicular to the coil" (’519 Patent, col. 7:20-22). A plaintiff might argue this disclosure suggests the inventors did not intend to limit the invention strictly to a circumferential placement, even though the claim uses that specific language.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly recites "on a circumference," and Figure 2, which illustrates the cooling mechanism, shows the blower (13) positioned on the outer circular path of the coil (10) (’519 Patent, Fig. 2). A defendant could argue that the plain language of the claim, supported by the clear depiction in the preferred embodiment, limits the scope to this specific geometric arrangement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement by "encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers to use the Infringing Devices in a manner that directly infringes the '519 patent" (Compl. ¶¶44-45). This is supported by allegations that Defendants offered training on the use of the devices (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both constructive and actual notice. The complaint pleads constructive notice through BTL's marking of its products with a reference to an online patent list (Compl. ¶47). It further alleges actual notice as of at least December 14, 2022, the date of the first cease and desist letter sent to Defendants, which allegedly identified the patent rights at issue (Compl. ¶¶34, 47). The complaint alleges Defendants continued their infringing activities despite this notice (Compl. ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may depend on the answers to two central questions:
- A key issue will be one of structural infringement: What does discovery reveal about the internal construction of the accused applicators? The case will likely hinge on whether the precise location of the internal blower and the path of airflow meet the specific claim limitations of being "on a circumference of the coil" and providing cooling "over at least upper and lower sides."
- A second core issue will be willfulness and damages: Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice and continued conduct, a central factual dispute will be whether Defendants’ actions after receiving the December 2022 cease and desist letter were objectively reckless, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages for willful infringement.