DCT
8:25-cv-01102
BTL Industries Inc v. Oc Body Clinic
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: OC Body Clinic (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Payne & Fears LLP; Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 8:25-cv-01102, C.D. Cal., 05/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant has its principal place of business in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "EMSlim NEO" body-contouring services infringe a patent related to an aesthetic method for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves non-invasive aesthetic treatments that use high-intensity, focused electromagnetic energy to induce powerful muscle contractions for body sculpting purposes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patent and alleged infringement via letters beginning on November 2, 2023, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-01 | ’634 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2018-06-01 | Plaintiff's EMSCULPT® device receives initial FDA clearance |
| 2018-10-01 | Plaintiff's EMSCULPT® device receives additional FDA clearance for arms |
| 2019-07-01 | Plaintiff's EMSCULPT® device receives further FDA clearance for calves |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 Issues |
| 2023-11-02 | Plaintiff allegedly informs Defendant of patent infringement via letter |
| 2025-05-22 | 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 (’634 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes existing aesthetic treatments, such as those using mechanical or thermal energy, as having drawbacks including the risk of undesirable side effects (e.g., panniculitis, overheating) and being unable to enhance the visual appearance of muscle through toning or shaping (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-31). Existing magnetic methods are described as having low efficiency and wasting energy, which limits their use (’634 Patent, col. 2:36-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for aesthetic treatment using a time-varying magnetic field with a magnetic flux density sufficient to induce muscle contractions (’634 Patent, col. 2:52-60). The method involves placing an applicator containing a magnetic field generating coil on a patient, securing it, and providing energy to generate a magnetic field of a specific intensity (fluence) to cause muscle contraction for aesthetic benefit (’634 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:5-24).
- Technical Importance: This technology purports to offer a new non-invasive method for focused remodeling of a patient's body, including muscle toning and body contouring, by directly stimulating muscle tissue with magnetic fields (’634 Patent, col. 3:32-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- Claim 1 of the ’634 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- A method for toning muscles in a patient using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Placing a first applicator with a magnetic field generating coil in contact with the patient's skin or clothing on the abdomen or a buttock.
- Coupling the applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt.
- 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.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this remains a possibility as the case proceeds.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a service offered by Defendant OC Body Clinic using a device identified in marketing as the "EMSlim NEO" device, which the complaint refers to as the "Knockoff Device" (Compl. ¶¶18, 29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused EMSlim NEO device is used to perform body-contouring services advertised as using "high-intensity focused electromagnetic energy (HIFEM)" and radio frequency (RF) to "eliminate fat and build muscle" (Compl. ¶¶34, 37).
- Defendant's marketing materials, cited in the complaint, claim the device provides "20,000 muscle contractions in just one session" (Compl. ¶34). An image from Defendant's website shows a description of the "Body Sculpting + EMSlim Neo (HIFEM)" service, further detailing its function of using HIFEM and RF to build muscle and melt fat (Compl. ¶34, p. 9).
- The complaint alleges the device uses an applicator placed on the patient's skin and secured with a flexible belt (Compl. ¶¶39, 47). The services are marketed for use on body areas including the abdomen, buttocks, arms, and thighs (Compl. ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’634 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for toning muscles in a patient using time-varying magnetic fields... | Defendant promotes and performs a service using the accused device for its ability to tone muscle, build muscle, and tighten skin. | ¶44 | col. 18:5-14 |
| 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; | Defendant's services involve placing applicators, which allegedly contain a magnetic field generating coil, on the skin of patients at various body regions, including the abdomen and buttock. A provided image depicts an applicator on a patient's buttock region (Compl. p. 15). | ¶46 | col. 18:35-54 |
| 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; | Promotional materials allegedly show the accused device's applicator being secured to a patient using an adjustable flexible belt strap. A provided visual shows an applicator secured by a belt to a patient's abdomen (Compl. p. 17). | ¶47 | col. 10:51-67 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; and | The complaint alleges the device includes a power supply that transmits energy to the applicators to generate time-varying magnetic fields, which is inferred from the advertised capability of inducing 20,000 muscle contractions in 30 minutes. | ¶48 | col. 11:1-29 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region, | The complaint alleges on information and belief that discovery will show the device’s magnetic field generating coils are configured to generate a magnetic field with a magnetic flux density and area sufficient to result in a magnetic fluence within the claimed range. | ¶49 | col. 14:8-15 |
| 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. | Defendant's advertising materials allegedly promote the device's ability to induce "20,000 muscle contractions" in a 30-minute session using HIFEM technology. | ¶50 | col. 18:7-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A central question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused "EMSlim NEO" device in fact generates a "magnetic fluence" within the specific quantitative range of "50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²" as required by claim 1. The complaint bases this allegation on "information and belief" and the need for discovery, indicating that this limitation will likely require expert measurement and testing of the accused device (Compl. ¶49).
- Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused device's advertised use of "HIFEM" technology and its claim of inducing "20,000 muscle contractions" necessarily meets the specific "magnetic fluence" and "magnetic flux density" limitations of the claim? While Defendant's advertising may support the general function of causing muscle contractions, it does not on its face confirm the specific quantitative parameters recited in the claim (Compl. ¶50).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "magnetic fluence"
Context and Importance: This term is critical as it imposes a specific, quantitative limitation on the claimed method. Infringement will depend on whether the accused service meets the numerical range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm². Practitioners may focus on this term because proving infringement of a precise numerical range is a significant evidentiary challenge that often requires expert analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a specific definition in Equation 4: "MF=BPP*AMFGD" (Magnetic Fluence = maximal peak to peak magnetic flux density * area of the magnetic field generating device), which clarifies how the value is to be calculated ('634 Patent, col. 14:3-7). This explicit definition may limit arguments for alternative interpretations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context for the claimed range by linking it to the generation of a time-varying magnetic field capable of achieving aesthetic effects, including treatment of deep muscle and stronger muscle contraction due to high magnetic flux density (’634 Patent, col. 18:5-14). This context ties the numerical value to a specific functional outcome.
The Term: "in contact with a patient's skin or clothing"
Context and Importance: The definition of "contact" could become relevant if the accused service is performed with an intervening medium, such as a gel or spacer, that Defendant argues is neither "skin" nor "clothing."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that direct contact "may include direct contact with the skin of the patient ... or the applicator contacting the patient's skin through a garment or any spacing object" ('634 Patent, col. 10:57-61). This language appears to explicitly broaden the term to include intervening objects.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "spacing object" is limited to passive items like a towel and does not extend to functional mediums like conductive gels, although the plain language of the specification may present a challenge to this view.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While the primary count is for direct infringement, the prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) (Compl. p. 23, ¶1). The complaint alleges that the accused device is "designed for a use that infringes" and "lacks a substantial non-infringing use," which are elements of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶51).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the ’634 Patent since at least November 2, 2023, as a result of a notice letter sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶33, 52). Continued alleged infringement after this date is presented as the basis for willful infringement.
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 testing, demonstrate that the accused "EMSlim NEO" service generates a "magnetic fluence" that falls within the specific numerical range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² recited in Claim 1, or will there be a quantitative mismatch?
- A second key question will be one of willfulness: Does the evidence of pre-suit notice, allegedly sent approximately 18 months before the complaint was filed, combined with Defendant's continued operation, rise to the level of objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?