DCT
1:25-cv-20564
BTL Industries Inc v. DNA Distribution LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: DNA Distribution LLC, Artyem Perlov, and Darya Varshavski (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-20564, S.D. Fla., 02/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are residents of and maintain their principal place of business within the Southern District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s non-invasive aesthetic devices, the NMS Body and NMS Face, infringe patents related to muscle stimulation using magnetic fields and combined radiofrequency/electric current treatments.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the non-invasive aesthetics market, focusing on devices that use electromagnetic energy to tone muscle and contour facial and body structures.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff notified Defendants of their potential infringement via email on September 27, 2024, a fact that may be central to the claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-06-01 | Plaintiff launches EMSCULPT® device |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issues |
| 2020-05-04 | ’255 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-09-01 | Plaintiff launches EMFACE® device |
| 2023-06-20 | ’255 Patent Issues |
| 2024-09-27 | Plaintiff alleges it notified Defendants of infringement |
| 2025-02-06 | 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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634, entitled “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 treatments were often used separately and could not effectively enhance the visual appearance of muscle, such as through shaping or toning (’634 Patent, col. 2:26-31). Existing magnetic methods were described as having low efficiency and wasting energy, which limited their therapeutic use (’634 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of using a time-varying magnetic field with a high magnetic flux density to induce "supramaximal" muscle contractions—contractions stronger than what can be achieved voluntarily (’634 Patent, col. 19:20-24). These contractions are intended to remodel muscle and can also trigger apoptosis in surrounding fat cells, thereby providing a non-invasive method for both muscle toning and body contouring (’634 Patent, col. 18:5-14; col. 25:12-24).
- Technical Importance: The technology offered a non-invasive way to directly target and remodel muscle tissue for aesthetic purposes, a capability distinct from prior treatments that focused primarily on skin or fat (’634 Patent, col. 2:26-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Claim 1 of the ’634 Patent recites the following essential elements for a method of toning muscles:
- Placing a first applicator with a magnetic field generating coil on a patient's abdomen or 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.
U.S. Patent No. 11,679,255 - "Device and Method for Unattended Treatment of a Patient"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,679,255, entitled “Device and Method for Unattended Treatment of a Patient,” issued June 20, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies challenges with unattended aesthetic treatments on uneven body areas like the face, noting the difficulty of maintaining proper and homogenous energy delivery without a manual operator, which creates risks of burns or ineffective treatment (’255 Patent, col. 1:43-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a device featuring a flexible, adhesive pad containing an electrode that conforms to the body’s contours for unattended use (’255 Patent, Abstract). This single electrode is configured to deliver two types of energy: radiofrequency (RF) energy to cause heating and a pulsed electric current to cause muscle contraction, with both energy types managed by a control unit (’255 Patent, col. 2:50-57).
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to enable the safe, reproducible, and unattended application of combined thermal and muscle-stimulating aesthetic treatments on anatomically complex areas (’255 Patent, col. 2:50-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶68).
- Claim 16 of the ’255 Patent recites the following essential elements for a treatment device:
- A flexible pad configured for attachment to a patient's face, neck, or submentum.
- The pad comprises a flexible substrate, an electrode coupled to the substrate's underside, and an adhesive coupled to both.
- The electrode is configured to be in contact with the body part via the adhesive.
- The electrode is configured to apply radiofrequency energy for heating.
- The electrode is also configured to apply a pulsed electric current for muscle contraction.
- A control unit is configured to control both the RF energy and the pulsed electric current.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "NMS Body device" and the "NMS Face device" (collectively, the "Accused Devices") (Compl. ¶38).
Functionality and Market Context
- The NMS Body device is alleged to use electromagnetic waves to achieve "Fat Reduction & Muscle Toning" (Compl. ¶¶38, 56). Promotional materials cited in the complaint show applicators strapped to a patient’s abdomen and buttocks to induce muscle contractions (Compl. ¶¶51, 58). An Instagram post included in the complaint shows the NMS Body device applicators strapped to a patient’s abdomen (Compl. p. 18).
- The NMS Face device is alleged to operate on a "dual-technology platform" that uses "deep Radiofrequency" to heat the skin and "Neuro-Muscular Stimulation (NMS)" with "precise electrical pulses" to contract facial muscles (Compl. ¶72). Visuals in the complaint depict flexible pads adhered to a patient's face and submentum during treatment (Compl. ¶¶51, 73, 81). A screenshot from DNA's Instagram account shows the NMS Face device's pads flexing to the contours of a patient's face (Compl. p. 29).
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 allegedly instruct users to place the NMS Body device's applicators, which contain a magnetic field generating coil, on a patient's abdomen or buttocks. | ¶58 | col. 18:35-40 |
| 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 NMS Body device is allegedly sold with and used with an adjustable flexible belt to fasten the applicators to the patient's body. | ¶59 | col. 10:59-63 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field | The NMS Body device allegedly includes a power supply that transmits energy to the applicators to generate time-varying magnetic fields. | ¶60 | col. 12:1-4 |
| 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 the device’s coils are configured to generate a time-varying magnetic field that results in a magnetic fluence within the claimed range. | ¶61 | col. 14:7-16 |
| 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 NMS Body device is allegedly advertised as capable of inducing "supramaximal contractions" by generating magnetic fields. | ¶62 | col. 18:8-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question is whether the NMS Body device actually applies a "magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²," as required by the claim. The complaint makes this allegation "on information and belief," indicating that this technical parameter will require proof through discovery and expert analysis (Compl. ¶61).
’255 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible pad configured to be attached to a body part of a patient... wherein the body part comprises one of a face, a neck, or a submentum | The NMS Face device allegedly includes flexible pads that are shown in marketing materials attached to a patient's face and submentum. | ¶¶73, 81 | col. 3:45-50 |
| a flexible substrate...an electrode coupled to the underside...and an adhesive coupled to the underside... | The flexible pads are alleged to include a flexible substrate, an electrode for delivering current, and an adhesive for attachment to the patient's face. | ¶¶74-76 | col. 4:50-55 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to be in contact with the body part via the adhesive | Marketing images allegedly show the pads are adhered directly to the patient's face, implying contact is made via an adhesive. | ¶77 | col. 4:53-55 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to apply radiofrequency energy to the body part to cause heating of the body part | The device's marketing allegedly describes using "deep Radiofrequency" that "heats the skin's deeper layers to a specific temperature." | ¶78 | col. 2:50-53 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to apply pulsed electric current to the body part to cause a muscle contraction... | The device's marketing allegedly states that "Neuro-Muscular Stimulation (NMS) targets the facial muscles with precise electrical pulses," and video evidence allegedly shows muscle contractions. | ¶79 | col. 2:53-55 |
| a control unit configured to control the radiofrequency energy and the pulsed electric current... | A video allegedly shows an operator interacting with the NMS Face device's control unit to select and modify the device's RF energy and pulsed electric current. | ¶80 | col. 5:11-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim recites "an electrode" that performs both RF heating and pulsed current stimulation. A potential issue is whether this requires a single, unitary component. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused NMS Face device uses one integrated component or separate components for these two functions, and how the term "electrode" is construed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’634 Patent
- The Term: "magnetic fluence"
- Context and Importance: This term is quantitative and forms the core of a key limitation. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused device operates within the numerically defined range of "50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²." Practitioners may focus on this term because its measurement and calculation methodology could be outcome-determinative.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a direct formula: 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 this plain formula should be applied without further limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of coil diameters and winding areas (’634 Patent, col. 13:35-54). A party could argue that these examples cabin the interpretation of what constitutes the "AMFGD", or "area," potentially excluding certain parts of the accused device's applicator from the calculation.
For the ’255 Patent
- The Term: "an electrode"
- Context and Importance: Claim 16 introduces "an electrode" and subsequently uses "the electrode" to describe the component that applies RF energy, applies pulsed electric current, and is coupled to the substrate and adhesive. Its construction is critical because if it is interpreted to mean a single, integrated physical structure, an accused device using separate components for heating and muscle stimulation may not infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "electrode" should be construed functionally as the overall energy-delivery system on the pad's underside, regardless of whether it is a single piece of material. The specification describes the active element as being "in the form of an electrode" without strictly defining its unitary physical nature (’255 Patent, col. 4:50-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent grammatical use of "an electrode" followed by "the electrode" provides an antecedent basis for arguing it refers to a single structure. The patent figures, such as Figure 4, depict discrete conductive elements (41a, 41b) that could be argued to be single electrodes (’255 Patent, Fig. 4).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’634 method patent, asserting that Defendants encourage and instruct customers to use the NMS Body device in a manner that performs the claimed steps (Compl. ¶55). Induced infringement is also alleged for the ’255 device patent based on instructions provided to customers (Compl. ¶71).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both asserted patents. The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge, arising from an email Plaintiff's counsel sent to Defendants on September 27, 2024, which allegedly provided notice of the asserted patents and the infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶43, 64, 82).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate through technical analysis that the accused NMS Body device operates within the specific "magnetic fluence" range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm², a critical limitation in the ’634 Patent that the complaint currently alleges on information and belief?
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: for the ’255 Patent, must the term "an electrode" be construed as a single, unitary structure that performs both RF heating and pulsed current stimulation, or can its scope encompass a device that uses physically separate conductive elements for each function on its flexible pad?
- A significant question for damages will be one of culpability: did Defendants' alleged continuation of their commercial activities after receiving Plaintiff's notice letter on September 27, 2024, constitute willful infringement sufficient to justify enhanced damages?