DCT

3:25-cv-00524

BTL Industries Inc v. Cryo Republic Wellness Body Contouring LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00524, S.D. Cal., 03/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of California because the corporate defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district and the individual defendant resides there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aesthetic body contouring services, offered using devices referred to as “EMSCULPT RENA” and “C/R Sculpt,” infringe a patent related to methods of toning muscle using time-varying magnetic fields.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the use of non-invasive, high-intensity focused electromagnetic fields to induce powerful muscle contractions for aesthetic purposes like body sculpting and muscle toning.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants on May 30, 2024, providing notice of potential patent infringement. Following communications, Defendants allegedly represented that they had disposed of an accused device, but later began offering what Plaintiff claims are identical services using a rebranded device. This history forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-07-01 ’634 Patent Priority Date
2018-01-01 Plaintiff BTL launches its EMSCULPT device
2019-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 issues
2024-05-30 Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to Defendants
2025-01-22 Plaintiff learns Defendants are offering "C/R Sculpt" services
2025-03-06 Complaint filed

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 notes that common non-invasive aesthetic procedures based on mechanical or electromagnetic waves suffer from drawbacks such as the risk of overheating, thermal damage, and non-homogenous results, while existing magnetic methods are limited in key parameters, have low efficiency, and waste energy (’634 Patent, col. 2:5-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for aesthetic treatment that uses a time-varying magnetic field with a magnetic flux density sufficient to induce muscle contractions (’634 Patent, col. 2:52-58). By applying an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil to specific body regions like the abdomen or buttocks, the method aims to achieve targeted remodeling of the patient's body, including muscle toning and fat reduction, more effectively and efficiently than prior art methods (’634 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 15).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a non-invasive way to induce supramaximal muscle contractions—contractions more powerful than what can be achieved through voluntary exercise—for aesthetic body contouring (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’634 Patent, Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • 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, wherein the body region is an abdomen or a buttock.
    • 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.
    • Providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field.
    • Applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region.
    • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the aesthetic body-contouring services provided by Defendants using devices identified as “EMSCULPT RENA,” “C/R Sculpt,” and “MUSCULPTING NEO” (collectively, the “Knockoff Devices”) (Compl. ¶¶28, 32).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants’ services use “High Intensity Focused-Electro-Magnetic” technology to tone and sculpt the body by inducing muscle contractions that are not achievable through voluntary exercise (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 41). The services involve placing applicators on a patient’s abdomen or buttocks and securing them with belt straps (Compl. ¶¶36-37). An image from Defendants' social media shows an applicator with a belt placed on a patient's abdomen (Compl. p. 8). The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that the accused devices operate by applying a magnetic flux within a specific numerical range to cause muscle contraction (Compl. ¶28). Defendants’ marketing materials for the “C/R Sculpt” service claim it can “increase muscle by 25%” and “Reduce Fat by 30%” (Compl. p. 11).

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... Defendants offer and perform body-contouring services, such as "C/R Sculpt," that are advertised to tone muscle using "High Intensity Focused-Electro-Magnetic" technology. ¶33 col. 2:52-58
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' services involve positioning applicators, alleged to each contain a magnetic field generating coil, on a patient's skin or clothing at body regions including the abdomen and buttock. ¶¶35, 36 col. 34:40-45
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 devices' applicators are allegedly secured to the patient using "belt straps," as depicted in images from Defendants' landing page. ¶37 col. 10:52-57
providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; and The accused devices allegedly use a power supply to transmit energy to the applicators, which in turn generates time-varying magnetic fields that vary in intensity and frequency over time. ¶¶34, 38 col. 11:61-67
applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region, On information and belief, the method of operation of the accused devices includes applying a magnetic fluence within the range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region. ¶40 col. 14:17-21
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. Defendants’ marketing materials state that the accused devices' energy "contracts the muscle fibers in the area at intensities that are not achievable during voluntary workout," inducing up to "20,000 contractions" in 30 minutes. ¶¶41, 16 col. 18:6-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely concern whether the accused devices actually operate within the claimed numerical range for "magnetic fluence." The complaint alleges this "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶40), a claim that will depend on evidence obtained through discovery regarding the technical specifications and performance of the "C/R Sculpt" device.
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory relies heavily on Defendants' marketing materials (Compl. pp. 11-16). A potential point of contention is whether the technical function of the accused services, as actually performed, meets every claim limitation, or whether the marketing language cited in the complaint is aspirational or technically imprecise. For example, images provided in the complaint show applicators secured with straps (Compl. p. 13), raising the question of whether this arrangement meets the claim requirement of a belt that "holds the first applicator to the patient's skin or clothing."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "magnetic fluence"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute as it is defined by a specific numerical range (50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²). Infringement will hinge on whether the accused devices can be proven to generate a fluence within this claimed range. Practitioners may focus on this term because the allegation is made on "information and belief," suggesting it will be a key factual battleground.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be interpreted practically, in light of the patent's overall purpose of using magnetic fields for muscle toning, and not be confined to a rigid measurement methodology if the device achieves the same result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific formula for calculating magnetic fluence: 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. 14:1-6). A party could argue that this formula strictly defines the scope of the term, and any accused device whose parameters fall outside this calculation does not infringe.

  • The Term: "coupling the first applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint points to images of straps used to secure the applicators as evidence of this element (Compl. ¶37). The definition of "belt" and the function of "coupling" may become a point of contention if the accused device's securing mechanism differs from a conventional belt.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "positioning member" as potentially being an "adjustable flexible belt" intended to "ensure tight attachment of the applicator" (’634 Patent, col. 10:52-56). This language may support a broad reading that covers any flexible, adjustable strap that performs this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "belt" implies a specific structure, perhaps one that fully encircles a limb or torso, and that a simpler "strap" does not meet the limitation. The specification also mentions the positioning member could be a mechanical "arm," suggesting "belt" is not an all-encompassing term for any securing mechanism (’634 Patent, col. 10:53).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c), which includes indirect infringement (Compl. p. 19). However, the factual allegations in Count I primarily describe acts of direct infringement, alleging Defendants themselves perform the steps of the patented method when providing services to patients (Compl. ¶32).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was and is willful based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’634 Patent (Compl. ¶42). This allegation is supported by the May 30, 2024 notice letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendants, as well as Plaintiff's public patent marking via its website (Compl. ¶¶25, 42). The allegation that Defendants continued to infringe with a rebranded device after receiving notice is presented as evidence of deliberate conduct (Compl. p. 7).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can discovery confirm the complaint’s ‘information and belief’ allegations that the accused ‘C/R Sculpt’ device operates within the specific numerical range for "magnetic fluence" recited in Claim 1, or will objective measurement show that the device’s actual performance parameters fall outside this claimed scope?
  • The dispute over willfulness may turn on the legal effect of the parties’ pre-suit conduct: did Defendants’ alleged actions—replacing the ‘EMSCULPT RENA’ with the functionally similar ‘C/R Sculpt’ device after receiving Plaintiff’s infringement notice—constitute objectively reckless behavior sufficient to support a claim for enhanced damages?