DCT
1:24-cv-00139
BTL Industries Inc v. Rejuva Fresh LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Rejuva Fresh LLC (Wyoming) and Polly Jacobs (Maine)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pierce Atwood LLP; Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00139, D. Me., 04/23/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Maine because Defendant Rejuva Fresh has its principal place of business in the district, Defendant Polly Jacobs is a resident of the district, and both are subject to personal jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ non-invasive facial therapy machines infringe a patent related to an aesthetic treatment device that uses a flexible, adhesive pad to deliver both radiofrequency energy and pulsed electric current to a patient’s face, neck, or submentum.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the non-invasive aesthetic device market, where combined energy modalities are used to achieve cosmetic effects such as skin tightening and muscle toning.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes an ongoing, separate lawsuit between the same parties in the same court (Case No. 1:23-cv-00032), which involves different patents and accused products. Plaintiff also alleges that it provided Defendants with notice of the asserted patent via email approximately two months before filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,679,255 Priority Date |
| 2022-09 | Plaintiff BTL launches its EMFACE device |
| 2023-06-20 | U.S. Patent No. 11,679,255 Issue Date |
| 2024-02-23 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendants of asserted patent |
| 2024-04-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of achieving reproducible and homogeneous energy delivery for aesthetic treatments on anatomically complex areas like the face using traditional, manually operated devices, which poses a risk of inconsistent results and adverse events like burns (’255 Patent, col. 1:43-54). It also identifies a market need for combining a heating treatment with muscle stimulation to improve a patient's visual appearance (’255 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device for unattended treatment that utilizes a flexible, adhesive pad containing one or more electrodes (’255 Patent, Abstract). This pad is designed to conform to rugged body areas and deliver two types of energy from the same electrode: radiofrequency (RF) energy to heat tissue and pulsed electric current to stimulate muscle contraction, enabling a combined, automated therapy session (’255 Patent, col. 2:50-65). The configuration is illustrated in patent figures showing pads applied to a patient's face (’255 Patent, Fig. 3A).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables the simultaneous or sequential delivery of two distinct energy types (thermal and electrical) in a single, unattended session, which aims to improve the safety, consistency, and efficacy of aesthetic treatments on complex body surfaces like the face (’255 Patent, col. 1:36-42).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 16 of the ’255 Patent (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of independent claim 16 are:
- A device for treating a patient with RF energy and pulsed electric current.
- A flexible pad for attachment to a patient's face, neck, or submentum.
- The pad comprises a flexible substrate with an underside, an electrode coupled to the underside, and an adhesive coupled to both the substrate underside and the electrode.
- The electrode is configured to contact the body part via the adhesive.
- The electrode is configured to apply RF energy to cause heating.
- The electrode is also configured to apply pulsed electric current to cause muscle contraction.
- A control unit is configured to control both the RF energy and the pulsed electric current to provide the heating and muscle contraction during treatment.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but does seek relief for infringement of "one or more claims of the Asserted Patent" (Compl. p. 24, ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "EMVisage Facial Therapy Machine Portable" and the "EMVisage Facial Rejuvenation Machine" (collectively, the "Accused Devices") (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Devices are alleged to utilize a "synchronized blend of focused high intensity electromagnetic stimulation (FHIES) and radio frequency (RF) energies" to reduce wrinkles and improve facial contours (Compl. ¶25). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website for the 'EMVisage Facial Rejuvenation Machine,' showing the device, its control screen, and applicators (Compl. p. 15).
The complaint further cites a YouTube video allegedly showing the use of flexible pads that are adhered to a patient's face and connected to a control unit (Compl. ¶43, ¶50). These devices are positioned as competitors to Plaintiff's products in the non-invasive aesthetic facial-contouring market (Compl. ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
11,679,255 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 Accused Devices are used with flexible pads that are shown in marketing materials being attached to a patient's face. | ¶43, ¶51 | col. 3:10-12 |
| a flexible substrate comprising an underside configured to face the body part during a treatment; | The flexible pads shown in marketing materials inherently possess a substrate with an underside that faces the patient. | ¶44 | col. 31:33-35 |
| an electrode coupled to the underside of the flexible substrate; | Alleged on information and belief, based on the device's use of pulsed electric current and flexible substrates. | ¶45, fn. 1 | col. 31:36-37 |
| an adhesive coupled to the underside of the flexible substrate and to the electrode, | Alleged on information and belief, based on a video showing an operator removing a protective coating from the pad and adhering it to a patient's face. | ¶46, fn. 2 | col. 31:38-40 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to be in contact with the body part via the adhesive; | The pads are shown being adhered to the patient's face, allegedly creating contact between the electrode and the skin via the adhesive. | ¶47 | col. 31:41-42 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to apply radiofrequency energy to the body part to cause heating of the body part, | Defendants' product webpages state that the technology uses radiofrequency (RF) energy. | ¶48 | col. 31:43-45 |
| wherein the electrode is configured to apply pulsed electric current to the body part to cause a muscle contraction of a muscle within the body part; | Defendants' product webpages state the device delivers "tens of thousands of electrical pulses, which stimulate the involuntary muscular movements." | ¶49 | col. 31:46-49 |
| a control unit configured to control the radiofrequency energy and the pulsed electric current to provide the heating and the muscle contraction... | Marketing materials depict a control unit used to operate the device. | ¶50 | col. 31:50-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the accused product's "focused high intensity electromagnetic stimulation (FHIES)" technology falls within the meaning of the claimed "pulsed electric current." The complaint alleges the product delivers "electrical pulses," but the terminology difference ("electromagnetic stimulation" vs. "electric current") may become a focal point for a non-infringement argument centered on different physical mechanisms of action.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on "information and belief" to allege the internal structure of the accused pads, specifically the coupling of the electrode and adhesive to the substrate (Compl. ¶45, fn. 1; ¶46, fn. 2). This raises the evidentiary question of whether the physical construction of the Accused Devices' pads actually meets these structural limitations, an issue that will likely depend on discovery and product teardowns.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pulsed electric current"
Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused technology, described as "focused high intensity electromagnetic stimulation (FHIES)," is properly characterized as a "pulsed electric current" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it represents the primary potential mismatch between the patent's language and the accused product's description.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a wide range of electrotherapy types, including intermittent direct currents and alternating currents like TENS and faradic current, suggesting the term could be interpreted broadly to cover various methods of electrical muscle stimulation (’255 Patent, col. 13:5-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification and figures distinguish between a "primary electromagnetic generator" (6) for RF heating and a "secondary generator" (9) for providing "electric current" for electrotherapy, which could support an argument that "electromagnetic stimulation" and "electric current" are mutually exclusive mechanisms within the patent's own framework (’255 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:48-55). A defendant may argue that FHIES is a form of magnetic induction, not a direct application of current.
The Term: "electrode coupled to the underside of the flexible substrate"
Context and Importance: The complaint alleges this structural limitation on "information and belief," indicating that Plaintiff has not confirmed the internal construction of the accused pads. The definition of "coupled" will therefore be important in determining whether the yet-to-be-discovered physical arrangement of the accused pads infringes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "coupled" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to mean functionally or operatively connected, without requiring a specific method of physical attachment or layering.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a distinct layered structure with the electrode (13), substrate (42), and adhesive (40). A party could argue that "coupled to the underside" requires this specific layered physical arrangement, potentially excluding other designs where components are, for example, co-planar or integrated differently (’255 Patent, Fig. 4).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants encourage and instruct customers on the infringing use of the Accused Devices, referencing promotional materials, user manuals, and brochures (Compl. ¶27, ¶33, ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendants were made aware of the ’255 Patent via an email from BTL's counsel on February 23, 2024, and continued their allegedly infringing conduct thereafter (Compl. ¶28, ¶52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the term "pulsed electric current," which is described in the patent in the context of conventional electrotherapy, be construed to read on the accused products' "focused high intensity electromagnetic stimulation (FHIES)" technology? The case may turn on whether these are functionally and structurally equivalent modes of inducing muscle contraction.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural proof: given that the complaint's allegations regarding the internal construction of the accused pads are made on "information and belief," can the plaintiff produce evidence from discovery to demonstrate that the pads literally contain an "electrode coupled to the underside of the flexible substrate" as required by the claim's specific structural language?