DCT

2:23-cv-04436

BTL Industries, Inc. v. Dr Juventas

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-04436, C.D. Cal., 06/06/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Dr Juventas has its principal place of business in the district and Defendant Nastran Hashemi resides in the district and serves as the corporation's registered agent.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' aesthetic services, which utilize "EMSlim Neo" and similar devices, infringe a patent directed to methods of toning muscles using high-intensity, time-varying magnetic fields.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates in the non-invasive aesthetic and body-contouring market, where electromagnetic energy is used to stimulate muscle contractions for cosmetic enhancement.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent notice letters to Defendants regarding the infringing conduct on August 24, 2022, and April 11, 2023, to which Defendants allegedly did not respond. This history is cited to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-07-01 ’634 Patent Priority Date
2019-11-19 ’634 Patent Issue Date
2022-08-22 Alleged First Infringing Activity
2023-06-06 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 - “Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes existing non-invasive aesthetic treatments, such as those using mechanical or electromagnetic waves, as having several drawbacks, including the risk of overheating tissue, non-homogenous results, and an inability to effectively enhance the visual appearance of muscle through toning or shaping (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for aesthetic treatment using a time-varying magnetic field powerful enough to induce muscle contractions. This is achieved by placing an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil on a target body region (e.g., abdomen or buttocks) to stimulate muscles, thereby enhancing their visual appearance and remodeling surrounding tissue (’634 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-62).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for non-invasive muscle toning and body contouring, an effect the patent asserts was not satisfactorily achievable with prior thermal or mechanical aesthetic treatments (Compl. ¶¶15-16; ’634 Patent, col. 2:26-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A method for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
    • Placing an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil in contact with a patient's skin or clothing on the abdomen or a buttock.
    • Coupling the applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt to hold it in place.
    • Providing energy to the coil to generate a time-varying magnetic field.
    • Applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region.
    • Applying the field with a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause muscle contraction.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are services that use devices named "EMSlim Neo, EMSlim, and EMSHIF," which the complaint refers to as "Counterfeit Devices" (Compl. ¶¶19, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants advertise and use these devices to perform non-invasive muscle toning treatments on patients (Compl. ¶¶24, 27). The described functionality involves applying time-varying magnetic fields to a patient's skin via an applicator containing a magnetic-field-generating coil, which is held in place with a flexible belt. The complaint alleges these actions cause muscle contraction and operate within specific magnetic field parameters claimed by the patent (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-16; Compl. ¶27). An image provided in the complaint shows an applicator with a belt strapped to a patient’s abdomen during a procedure (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’634 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
placing a first applicator comprising a magnetic field generating coil in contact with a patient's skin or clothing at a body region of the patient, wherein the body region is an abdomen or a buttock Defendants apply an applicator containing a magnetic-field-generating coil to a patient's skin for muscle toning services. ¶27 col. 18:31-36
coupling the first applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt so that the belt holds the first applicator to the patient's skin or clothing The applicator is held to the patient using a flexible belt. ¶27 col. 10:51-54
providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field The magnetic-field-generating coil in the accused devices is alleged to generate a time-varying magnetic field. ¶27 col. 11:61-67
applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region The accused devices are alleged to apply a magnetic flux within the range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm². ¶27 col. 14:8-16
wherein the time-varying magnetic field is applied to the body region with a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction in the body region The application of the magnetic field from the accused devices is alleged to cause muscle contraction. ¶27 col. 18:7-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations for infringement are based on "information and belief" and directly track the language of claim 1. A primary point of contention may be evidentiary: what factual proof can be developed to demonstrate that the accused "EMSlim Neo" devices actually operate within the specific numerical range of a "magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²" as required by the claim?
    • Technical Questions: The dispute will likely center on the measurement and characterization of the accused devices' performance. The methodology for calculating "magnetic fluence" as defined in the patent—the product of peak-to-peak magnetic flux density and the area of the generating device—may become a central technical question requiring expert analysis and testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "magnetic fluence"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it introduces a specific, quantitative range (50 to 1,500 T cm²) that defines the scope of the claimed method. Infringement will depend entirely on whether the accused devices can be proven to operate within this numerical boundary. Practitioners may focus on this term because the factual basis for this allegation is made on "information and belief" and will require technical evidence to substantiate.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides a broad range of potential magnetic fluence values, stating it may be in "a range of 5 to 60000 T·cm²," which could be used to argue that the claimed range is just one exemplary embodiment of a broader principle (’634 Patent, col. 14:8-16). However, the claim itself is limited to the 50-1,500 T cm² range.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a precise definition in Equation 4: MF=BPP*AMFGD (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-7). This explicit definition provides a specific formula for calculation, suggesting a narrow and technically precise meaning that is not open to significant expansion. The dispute will likely focus on the proper method of measuring the inputs to this formula (BPP and AMFGD) on the accused device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants encourage, promote, and instruct customers to use the accused devices in a manner that directly infringes the ’634 Patent (Compl. ¶32).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’634 Patent. The complaint asserts that Defendants were notified of their infringing conduct via letters on August 24, 2022, and April 11, 2023, and were aware of Plaintiff's products and its public patent marking notice (Compl. ¶33).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff, through discovery and expert analysis, substantiate its "information and belief" allegation that the accused "EMSlim Neo" devices generate a "magnetic fluence" that falls within the specific numerical range of 50 to 1,500 T cm² required by claim 1? The outcome may depend heavily on a battle of expert testimony regarding the measurement and operation of the accused systems.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction methodology: how should the term "magnetic fluence" be calculated for the accused device? While the patent provides a formula, the parties will likely dispute the proper technical methods for measuring the formula's inputs—peak-to-peak magnetic flux density and the area of the generating device—which could be dispositive for the infringement analysis.