DCT
2:25-cv-00219
BTL Industries Inc v. Studio Ems LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Studio EMS, LLC, Terra Jeffery, and Chloe Jeffery (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00219, N.D. Ga., 07/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia as Defendants reside in and maintain their principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "WonderFace" non-invasive facial contouring device and associated services infringe two patents related to aesthetic devices that simultaneously deliver radiofrequency energy and pulsed electric currents.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the non-invasive aesthetic treatment market, combining thermal energy to heat skin tissue with electrical stimulation to contract underlying muscles for facial toning and sculpting.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the asserted patents via email and FedEx on at least three occasions—April 30, 2025, May 15, 2025, and June 10, 2025—prior to filing the suit. This history is presented as the basis for Defendants' alleged willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-05-04 | Earliest Priority Date for ’255 and ’167 Patents |
| 2022-03-XX | BTL receives FDA clearance for its EMFACE® device |
| 2022-09-XX | BTL launches its EMFACE® device in the U.S. |
| 2023-06-20 | U.S. Patent No. 11,679,255 Issues |
| 2024-01-23 | U.S. Patent No. 11,878,167 Issues |
| 2024-12-17 | Alleged start date of Defendants' advertisement of Accused Device |
| 2025-04-30 | Plaintiff sends first pre-suit notice letter to Defendants |
| 2025-05-15 | Plaintiff sends second pre-suit notice letter to Defendants |
| 2025-06-10 | Plaintiff sends third pre-suit notice letter; Defendants respond |
| 2025-07-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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, "Device and Method for Unattended Treatment of a Patient," issued June 20, 2023 (the “’255 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the technical challenge of delivering safe and reproducible aesthetic treatments that combine thermal energy with muscle stimulation to uneven or rugged areas of the body, such as the face, without constant manual operation ('255 Patent, col. 1:45-54, col. 2:25-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device using a flexible pad containing one or more "active elements" or electrodes that adhere to the patient's skin ('255 Patent, col. 3:7-15). These electrodes are configured to deliver both radiofrequency (RF) energy to cause tissue heating and pulsed electric current to induce muscle contraction, with a control unit managing the therapy, thereby enabling an unattended treatment session ('255 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:45-50).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for a combination therapy to be administered in a reproducible and unattended manner, which was a significant operational challenge for prior handheld or less adaptable aesthetic devices, particularly for facial applications ('255 Patent, col. 2:35-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts dependent claim 16, which relies on independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶48).
- The essential elements of independent claim 8 include:
- A flexible pad comprising an electrode, configured to be attached to a body part of a patient.
- The electrode is configured to apply radiofrequency energy to cause heating of the skin.
- The electrode is configured to apply a pulsed electric current with a pulse duration between 0.5 microseconds and 500 milliseconds to cause a muscle contraction.
- A control unit with a central processing unit configured to control both the radiofrequency energy and the pulsed electric current.
- Dependent claim 16 adds the limitation that the treated body part is a face, neck, or submentum ('255 Patent, col. 32:4-6). The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but makes allegations generally against the "Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 11,878,167 - "Device and Method for Unattended Treatment of a Patient"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,878,167, "Device and Method for Unattended Treatment of a Patient," issued January 23, 2024 (the “’167 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’255 Patent, the technology addresses the need for an improved medical device that can provide more than one type of treatment energy (e.g., electromagnetic and electric current) in an unattended fashion, particularly for uneven areas like the face (’167 Patent, col. 2:40-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device architecture featuring two distinct generators: a first for electromagnetic energy (e.g., RF) and a second for electric current (’167 Patent, col. 36:3-9). These generators are coupled via a conductive lead to an electrode on a flexible pad, with the pad and electrode having specific claimed surface area ranges. A control unit manages the two generators to deliver simultaneous skin heating and muscle contraction (’167 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: By defining an architecture with separate generators and specific component dimensions, the invention provides a concrete technical framework for building devices capable of delivering reliable, unattended combination aesthetic therapies (’167 Patent, col. 2:49-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A first generator configured to generate an electromagnetic energy.
- A second generator configured to generate an electric current.
- A pad with a surface area between 0.1 cm² and 150 cm², comprising a substrate, a conductive lead, and an electrode.
- The electrode has a surface area between 1 cm² and 25 cm² and is coupled to both generators via the conductive lead.
- A control unit configured to control the first and second generators.
- The electrode is configured to deliver electromagnetic energy for heating and electric current for muscle contraction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for the ’167 Patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "WonderFace" device and the associated facial-contouring services offered by Defendants (Compl. ¶¶4, 32). The complaint identifies Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L. as the manufacturer (Compl. ¶52).
Functionality and Market Context
- The WonderFace device is alleged to perform non-invasive facial treatments using flexible pads, referred to as "applicators," that are placed on a patient’s forehead, cheeks, and neck (Compl. ¶53). Marketing materials cited in the complaint describe the device as using "synchronized neuromuscular + radiofrequency" and alternating between "Radiofrequency and High-Intensity Neuromuscular Stimulation technology" to tighten skin and tone facial muscles (Compl. ¶¶52, 70). The complaint alleges the device includes a control unit in the form of a tablet that an operator uses to manage the treatment (Compl. ¶60). An image from Defendants' website shows the WonderFace system, including a console and applicators being applied to a patient (Compl. p. 18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’255 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible pad configured to be attached to a body part of a patient... | The Accused Device uses flexible pads ("applicators") that are placed on a patient's face, neck, and submentum and flex to the contours of the skin. A diagram from the Defendants' website illustrates these facial electrodes. | ¶53, ¶61; p. 20 | col. 3:7-11 |
| an electrode coupled to the underside of the flexible substrate; and an adhesive coupled to the underside of the flexible substrate and to the electrode... | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the WonderFace pads include an electrode on the underside and use an adhesive to adhere to the patient's face. | ¶55, ¶56 | col. 16:1-6 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to apply radiofrequency energy to the body part to cause heating of the body part... | Defendants’ marketing materials state the device uses "Radiofrequency" and "RF technology" to tighten the skin, which the complaint alleges constitutes the claimed heating. | ¶52, ¶58 | col. 5:1-15 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to apply pulsed electric current...to cause a muscle contraction... | The device is described as using "High-Intensity Neuromuscular Stimulation" that causes "1,500 contractions per session." An Instagram video allegedly shows a patient's facial muscles contracting. | ¶52, ¶59; p. 31 | col. 5:29-34 |
| a control unit configured to control the radiofrequency energy and the pulsed electric current... | An operator is shown in social media posts interacting with a tablet to select and modify the device's energy delivery, which the complaint alleges is the claimed "control unit." | ¶60; p. 33 | col. 6:6-12 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Functional Questions: A central factual question may be whether the "High-Intensity Neuromuscular Stimulation" alleged to be used by the Accused Device (Compl. ¶52) meets the specific claim requirement of a "pulsed electric current with a pulse duration in a range of 0.5 us to 500 ms" ('255 Patent, col. 31:40-44). The complaint alleges this "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶44), suggesting that discovery will be needed to confirm the precise electrical characteristics.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of whether a single physical component in the accused device can simultaneously satisfy the limitations of an "electrode...configured to apply radiofrequency energy" and an "electrode...configured to apply pulsed electric current," as required by the claim structure.
’167 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first generator configured to generate an electromagnetic energy; | The complaint alleges that the Accused Device includes a first generator that emits electromagnetic energy in the form of radiofrequency to heat the skin. | ¶45, ¶71 | col. 36:37-39 |
| a second generator configured to generate an electric current; | The complaint alleges the device includes a second generator that supplies electric current for "neuromuscular emissions" to cause muscle contractions. | ¶45, ¶72 | col. 36:40-41 |
| a pad having a surface area in a range of 0.1 cm² to 150 cm² and configured to be attached to a body part of the patient... | The complaint alleges, based on investigation, that the accused pads have a surface area within the claimed range and are configured to attach to a patient's body. An Instagram post shows the eye electrodes attached to a patient's face. | ¶73; p. 43 | col. 37:1-3 |
| an electrode having a surface area in a range of 1 cm² to 25 cm², coupled to the...first generator and second generator via the conductive lead; | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the device's pads contain an electrode within the claimed surface area range that is coupled to both generators via a conductive lead. | ¶45, ¶76 | col. 37:7-12 |
| a control unit configured to control the first generator and the second generator... | The complaint points to images of an operator using a tablet to modify the device's RF energy and pulsed electric current as evidence of the claimed control unit. | ¶77; p. 50 | col. 37:13-15 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of two separate generators and specific surface area dimensions for the pad and electrode "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶45, 73, 76). A key point of contention will be whether discovery confirms that the internal architecture and physical dimensions of the Accused Device match these claimed structural limitations.
- Technical Questions: It raises the question of how the single "electrode" in the accused applicator is "coupled to the first generator and second generator via the conductive lead" to deliver two distinct forms of energy, and whether the physical implementation matches the configuration described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electrode" ('255 Patent, Claim 8; '167 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core component that allegedly delivers both thermal and electrical energy. Its construction is critical because Defendants may argue their "applicator" does not meet the technical definition of an "electrode" as used in the patents, or that a single structure cannot perform the dual functions as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory requires a single component to meet multiple functional limitations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the energy-delivering component as an "active element" and provides "electrode" as an example, suggesting "electrode" could be interpreted broadly as any active element capable of delivering the specified energies ('255 Patent, col. 3:9-11; '167 Patent, col. 3:10-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments, such as framed or grated electrodes, illustrated in detail in Figures 8A-9I ('167 Patent, Figs. 9A-9I). A defendant could argue that the term "electrode" should be limited to these disclosed structures or ones with similar characteristics, particularly the grated configuration designed to improve flexibility and cooling ('167 Patent, col. 20:30-34).
The Term: "a control unit" ('255 Patent, Claim 8; '167 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of this element is based on the allegation that a software application on a general-purpose tablet constitutes the "control unit" (Compl. ¶60). The case may turn on whether this term is construed to cover such a configuration or if it requires a more integrated, specialized hardware controller.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '255 patent specification states the control unit may comprise a "CPU," which "may include a flex circuit or a printed circuit board and may include a microprocessor or memory for controlling the device" ('255 Patent, col. 7:31-34). This language could support a construction that includes general-purpose processors found in tablets.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The block diagram in Figure 1 of both patents depicts the "control unit" (11) as a distinct block within an "interconnecting block" (3), separate from the "main unit" (2) which contains the human-machine interface. This could support an argument that the term requires a specific hardware architecture rather than just a software application on a multi-purpose device. ('255 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants encourage, promote, and provide instructions for using the WonderFace device in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶51, 69). This is supported by citations to Defendants' website and Instagram posts, which allegedly instruct customers on the device's use and benefits for facial toning (Compl. ¶¶52, 53, 58).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that BTL sent notice letters identifying the patents to Defendants on April 30, 2025, and followed up on May 15 and June 10, 2025 (Compl. ¶36). The complaint also notes that the asserted patents are listed on BTL's public patent marking website (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Confirmation: A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: will discovery validate the complaint's "information and belief" allegations regarding the internal structure of the WonderFace device, particularly the existence of two separate generators and components meeting the specific surface area ranges required by the ’167 patent?
- Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on a question of claim construction: does the term "electrode," as defined and used in the patents, read on the accused "applicator" that is alleged to perform the dual functions of RF heating and neuromuscular stimulation, or is the term limited to the specific structures disclosed in the specification?
- Functional Equivalence: A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused device’s tablet-based controller perform the specific functions of the claimed "control unit" as understood in the context of the patent's disclosed architecture, or is there a fundamental mismatch between a general-purpose tablet and the claimed integrated control system?