DCT
1:25-cv-05339
BTL Industries Inc v. Honey Moon LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Honey and The Moon LLC, d/b/a The Salty Moon Wellness Center and Alaina Molesko (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-05339, D.N.J., 05/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are residents of and maintain their principal place of business within the District of New Jersey.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s body-contouring services, which use the "EMShape NeoSculpt" device, infringe a patent directed to aesthetic methods for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology involves non-invasive aesthetic treatments that use high-intensity focused electromagnetic energy to induce supramaximal muscle contractions for body sculpting and muscle toning.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendants regarding the infringing conduct on November 7, 2024, followed by additional communications with Defendants and their counsel. The complaint alleges Defendants were informed they would "continue operating [their] business as usual" on March 5, 2025, which may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-12-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 Priority Date |
| 2018-06-01 | Plaintiff BTL launches its EMSCULPT device |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 Issues |
| 2024-11-07 | Plaintiff's counsel sends first notice letter to Defendants |
| 2025-01-08 | Plaintiff's counsel sends follow-up letter to Defendants' counsel |
| 2025-03-05 | Defendants allegedly inform Plaintiff they will continue operating |
| 2025-03-07 | Plaintiff allegedly transmits a copy of the planned complaint to Defendants |
| 2025-05-23 | 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that existing non-invasive aesthetic treatments based on mechanical or electromagnetic waves have drawbacks, such as the risk of overheating tissue, non-homogenous results, or an inability to enhance the visual appearance of muscle (e.g., toning or shaping) (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-31). Existing magnetic methods are described as having low efficiency and wasting significant energy (’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 strong, supramaximal muscle contractions for aesthetic purposes (’634 Patent, col. 18:4-8). By applying a magnetic field powerful enough to cause these contractions, the method aims to remodel biological structures, such as toning muscles and reducing adipose tissue, thereby enhancing the visual appearance of a patient’s body (’634 Patent, col. 3:46-54).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for non-invasively toning muscle for aesthetic purposes, which the complaint alleges created a new market for such treatments (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
- 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 specified body region (abdomen or buttock).
- Coupling the applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt that holds the applicator to the patient's skin or clothing.
- 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.
- Wherein the magnetic field is applied with a flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but the prayer for relief requests judgment that Defendants have infringed "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶A, p. 44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "EMShape NeoSculpt" device, also identified as the "EMShape Neo Fit Body Sculpting Machine" allegedly obtained through a third party, Rejuva Fresh, and the associated body-contouring services offered by Defendants (Compl. ¶3, 34, 60).
Functionality and Market Context
- Based on Defendants' alleged promotional materials, the accused device uses "high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) energy to tone muscles and reduce stubborn fat" (Compl. ¶58). The materials state that "powerful electromagnetic pulses trigger intense muscle contractions" to stimulate muscle growth and tone treated areas (Compl. ¶58). The device is advertised for sculpting the abdomen, thighs, and buttocks (Compl. ¶63). The complaint includes a screenshot from a product manual showing various user-selectable treatment modes and adjustable intensity and frequency parameters (Compl. p. 22).
- The complaint alleges Defendants market these services as a non-invasive body sculpting technology that provides "noticeable muscle tone and fat reduction after just a few sessions" (Compl. ¶45).
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' website and product manuals for the Accused Device state that it uses "high intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) energy to tone muscles" and achieve a "toned and contoured body." | ¶57-60 | col. 18:4-8 |
| 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; | The Accused Device includes applicators ("handles") containing magnetic field generating coils. Promotional materials and product manuals depict these applicators being placed on a patient's abdomen and buttocks. | ¶61-64 | col. 10:52-64 |
| 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 Device is allegedly supplied with "belt straps," and promotional images show the applicators being secured to a patient's body with a flexible belt. | ¶65 | col. 10:57-59 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; | The Accused Device includes a power supply and power cord that allegedly transmit energy to the applicators to generate time-varying magnetic fields. A product manual image depicts connections for power and applicator handles. | ¶67-68 | col. 11:7-12 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T·cm² to 1,500 T·cm² to the body region, | Based on information and belief, the magnetic coils are configured to generate a magnetic flux density (0.1 T to 7 T) and have a sufficient area to result in a magnetic fluence within the claimed range. | ¶69 | col. 14:7-15 |
| 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. | Defendants' promotional materials state that the device's "powerful electromagnetic pulses trigger intense muscle contractions, far beyond what can be achieved through regular exercise." | ¶70 | col. 18:9-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint's allegation for the "magnetic fluence" limitation rests on "information and belief," supported by comparisons to other devices (Compl. ¶69). A central factual dispute will be whether Plaintiff can prove, through device testing and expert analysis during discovery, that the Accused Device actually operates within the specific numerical range of 50 to 1,500 T·cm² required by the claim. The visual evidence in the complaint, such as a screenshot from a product manual showing application to various body parts, supports the placement of the applicator but not the specific fluence value (Compl. p. 25).
- Scope Question: A potential, though likely secondary, point of contention could be the construction of "holds the first applicator to the patient's skin or clothing." The defense could argue that the provided straps are merely for positioning rather than "holding" in the manner contemplated by the patent, although the visual evidence appears to show the belt securing the applicator firmly in place during treatment (Compl. p. 29).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "magnetic fluence"
Context and Importance: This term is a critical, quantitative limitation of claim 1. The patent defines it with a specific formula: "MF = BPP * AMFGD" (maximal peak-to-peak magnetic flux density multiplied by the area of the magnetic field generating device) (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-5). The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend entirely on how this term is defined and measured.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the patent provides an explicit and unambiguous definition in Equation 4, leaving little room for construction. The specification discloses broad ranges for the constituent parts (flux density and area), which could support a finding that a wide variety of device configurations fall within the claim's scope (’634 Patent, col. 13:50-54; col. 14:7-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue for a more limited interpretation of the term "area of the magnetic field generating device" ("AMFGD"). For example, they might contend this area should be construed to mean only the active winding area of the coil, not the entire applicator footprint, which could result in a lower calculated fluence value.
The Term: "holds the first applicator"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the "coupling" limitation and adds a functional requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the physical connection between the patient and the device is a key aspect of the claimed method. A dispute could arise over whether the accused belt performs this "holding" function.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is straightforward. Plaintiff may argue that any flexible belt that keeps the applicator in place against the patient's body during treatment satisfies this element. The specification describes the positioning member as ensuring "tight attachment" or "direct contact" (’634 Patent, col. 10:55-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "holds" implies a specific degree of force, stability, or immobility that is not provided by the accused straps. They might point to language about the positioning member being inserted into a "concavity" on the applicator as an exemplary embodiment to argue for a more secure connection than a simple strap provides (’634 Patent, col. 10:30-34).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While Count I of the complaint focuses on direct infringement, the prayer for relief seeks a judgment of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c), thereby encompassing indirect infringement (Compl. ¶A, p. 44). The complaint alleges that Defendants' promotional materials and product manuals instruct on the use of the device, which could form a basis for an inducement theory (Compl. ¶57-60, p. 20-21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It specifically cites a notice letter sent to Defendants on November 7, 2024, and a subsequent communication on March 5, 2025, in which Defendants allegedly stated they would continue their business operations (Compl. ¶36, 39, 72). It further alleges Defendants were aware of the specific patent and infringement allegations as of at least March 7, 2025 (Compl. ¶43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery and device testing, produce evidence that the accused "EMShape NeoSculpt" device operates within the specific numerical "magnetic fluence" range of 50 to 1,500 T·cm² recited in claim 1? The complaint's present reliance on "information and belief" for this dispositive technical element marks it as the central factual battleground.
- A second key question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the "area of the magnetic field generating device," a key variable in the patent's formula for "magnetic fluence"? Whether this area is construed broadly as the entire applicator surface or narrowly as only the active coil windings could determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
- Finally, the case will likely involve a significant dispute over willfulness: Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice and Defendants' alleged decision to continue their conduct, a critical question for trial will be whether this conduct was objectively reckless, which could expose Defendants to the risk of enhanced damages.