DCT
2:23-cv-08707
BTL Industries Inc v. Doll Haus Aesthetics
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Doll Haus Aesthetics (California) and Honorée Treadwell (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Payne & Fears LLP; Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-08707, C.D. Cal., 10/16/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Doll Haus Aesthetics has its principal place of business in the District, and Defendant Honorée Treadwell is a resident of the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' aesthetic services, which utilize a device called the "EMSLIM NEO," infringe a patent directed to methods for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns non-invasive aesthetic body-contouring, where high-intensity focused electromagnetic fields are used to induce supramaximal muscle contractions for the purpose of toning muscle and improving physical appearance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendants a letter informing them of their infringing activities on June 3, 2022, followed by multiple emails and two additional letters, to which Defendants allegedly never responded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-06-03 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendants |
| 2022-06-03 | Earliest date of alleged infringement by Defendants |
| 2023-10-16 | 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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 ("Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field"), issued November 19, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that existing non-invasive aesthetic treatments based on mechanical or electromagnetic waves have drawbacks, including the risk of overheating, non-homogenous results, and an inability to enhance the visual appearance of muscle tissue (’634 Patent, col. 2:4-32). Existing magnetic methods are described as being limited by low efficiency and unwanted heat generation in the device itself (’634 Patent, col. 2:36-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for aesthetic treatment using a time-varying magnetic field with a magnetic flux density sufficient to induce muscle contractions (’634 Patent, col. 1:56-60). The patent describes an apparatus with a magnetic field generating device, such as a coil made of individually insulated wires, which is placed on a patient's body to target specific muscles, such as those in the abdomen or buttocks, for toning and shaping (’634 Patent, col. 3:11-30; col. 7:10-14).
- Technical Importance: The patented method purports to offer an improved non-invasive technique for focused muscle remodeling and body contouring, moving beyond the limitations of prior art fat reduction and skin tightening therapies (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’634 Patent (Compl. ¶31-32).
- Independent Claim 1 contains the following essential elements:
- A method for toning muscles in a patient using time-varying magnetic fields.
- 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, where the body region is an abdomen or a buttock.
- Coupling the first 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, with a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction.
- The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’634 patent (Prayer for Relief ¶1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "EMSLIM NEO" device and the aesthetic services offered by Defendants using that device (Compl. ¶25, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the Accused Device is advertised for toning muscles and uses time-varying magnetic fields applied to a patient's skin via an applicator held in place by a flexible belt (Compl. ¶28). A marketing image included in the complaint states the device uses "Radiofrequency and HIEMT (high intensity electromagnetic field) to eliminate fat and build muscles non-invasively" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint further alleges the Accused Device uses a magnetic-field-generating coil to apply a magnetic flux within a specific range to cause muscle contraction (Compl. ¶28). An image from Defendants' advertising shows the applicator being used on a patient's abdomen (Compl. p. 10).
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 the Accused Device's applicator to a patient's skin in the abdominal region for muscle toning. | ¶28, p. 10 | col. 34:10-14 |
| 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 Accused Device's applicator is held in place on the patient using a flexible belt. | ¶28, p. 10 | col. 10:56-57 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field | The Accused Device contains a magnetic-field-generating coil that generates a time-varying magnetic field. | ¶28, p. 8 | col. 11:59-67 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region | Upon information and belief, the Accused Device applies a magnetic flux of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm². | ¶28 | col. 14:19-21 |
| 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 Accused Device applies a magnetic field that causes muscle contraction, advertised as equivalent to "20k crunches in 30 min." | ¶28, p. 10 | col. 1:59-60 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory appears to map directly onto the language of Claim 1, with few obvious scope disputes. The allegations for certain elements, such as the specific range of "magnetic fluence," are asserted on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶28), suggesting the primary dispute may be evidentiary rather than interpretive.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the "EMSLIM NEO" device, in operation, actually generates a "magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²" as required by the claim. The complaint alleges this with specificity but without providing the basis for its belief, raising the question of what evidence Plaintiff will produce to substantiate this quantitative limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "magnetic fluence"
- Context and Importance: This term, with its specific numerical range of "50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²," is a critical limitation of Claim 1. The infringement case may turn on whether the accused device operates within this precise range. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a quantitative, and thus potentially dispositive, element that will require technical evidence and expert testimony to prove or disprove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a specific formula for the term: "MF=BPP*AMFGD," where Bpp is the maximal peak-to-peak magnetic flux density and AMFGD is the area of the magnetic field generating device (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-7). While the claim provides a numerical range, this underlying definition could be used to argue about how the fluence should be calculated or measured for the accused device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself recites a hard numerical range. A defendant may argue that this range is a strict boundary and any operation outside of it, even if functionally similar, is non-infringing. The specification's description of exemplary device dimensions and field strengths could be used to argue for a specific technical context that reinforces the claimed range (’634 Patent, col. 13:27-41).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendants "encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers to use the Accused Device in a manner that directly infringes" the ’634 patent (Compl. ¶33). This suggests that evidence may be sought from user manuals, training protocols, or marketing materials associated with the EMSLIM NEO device.
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The complaint cites BTL’s product marking, which includes a reference to an online patent listing, and a series of cease-and-desist letters and emails sent to Defendants beginning on June 3, 2022, to which Defendants allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶34, 25; Ex. 6).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: what technical evidence will be presented to support the complaint's allegation, made on "information and belief," that the accused "EMSLIM NEO" device operates within the specific "magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²" recited in Claim 1?
- A key question for damages will be one of culpability: does the Defendants' alleged failure to respond to a series of notice letters, followed by continued use of the accused device, rise to the level of willful infringement sufficient to justify enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?