DCT

2:22-cv-06555

BTL INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. DR. Devs Plastic Surgery & Medspa LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-06555, D.N.J., 11/30/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all defendants are residents of the District of New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "TEMS" non-invasive body-contouring devices and related services infringe four patents directed to aesthetic treatments using time-varying magnetic fields to stimulate muscle contraction.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using high-intensity, focused electromagnetic fields for non-invasive aesthetic purposes, such as muscle toning and body sculpting, a market segment Plaintiff claims to have pioneered.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Sandhu first purchased one of Plaintiff's authentic EMSCULPT devices in 2018 before beginning to import, market, and sell allegedly infringing "knockoff" devices in 2020. Plaintiff also alleges it sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to Defendants regarding both patent and trademark infringement, to which Defendants did not respond on the patent issues.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-07-01 Priority Date for ’519 Patent
2016-07-01 Priority Date for ’852, ’575, and ’634 Patents
2017-05-02 ’519 Patent Issued
2018-06-01 BTL launched EMSCULPT device in the United States
2018-09-28 Defendant Sandhu purchased genuine EMSCULPT device from BTL
2019-11-19 ’634 Patent Issued
2020-06-30 ’575 Patent Issued
2020-07-01 Defendants allegedly began offering to sell, selling, and/or importing accused TEMS devices
2022-03-08 ’852 Patent Issued
2022-11-30 Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,266,852 - "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,266,852, "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field," issued March 8, 2022 (’852 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Existing non-invasive aesthetic treatments were based on mechanical waves or electromagnetic waves that primarily targeted skin or adipose tissue, but were not able to provide significant enhancement of muscle appearance, such as toning or shaping (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-31). Prior magnetic methods were described as inefficient, wasting energy and having limited parameters that did not allow for satisfactory results (’634 Patent, col. 2:35-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a treatment device that uses two planar magnetic field generating coils, housed in applicators, to generate time-varying magnetic fields with specific characteristics. These fields are applied to a patient's body to cause supramaximal muscle contractions—contractions stronger than what can be achieved voluntarily—thereby enhancing the visual appearance of muscles in areas like the buttocks or abdomen (’852 Patent, Abstract; ’634 Patent, col. 19:20-24). The device is configured to deliver pulses at different repetition rates, allowing for varied treatment protocols (’852 Patent, cl. 9).
  • Technical Importance: This technology created a new market for non-invasive body contouring by being the first to apply high-intensity, focused electromagnetic energy for aesthetic muscle toning and firming (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 9 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Essential elements of Claim 9 include:
    • A treatment device for enhancing a visual appearance of a patient.
    • Comprising a first and a second magnetic field generating coil, both of which are planar.
    • A first applicator comprising the first coil.
    • The first coil is configured to generate a first time-varying magnetic field with a repetition rate of 1 Hz to 300 Hz and a magnetic flux density of 0.1 to 7 Tesla.
    • The second coil is configured to generate a second time-varying magnetic field with similar parameters.
    • The first coil is configured to generate its field independently of the second coil's field.
    • Each coil is configured to generate a plurality of pulses, which includes a first plurality of pulses at a first repetition rate and a second plurality at a different, second repetition rate.
    • The coils are configured for placement near a body region (buttocks or abdomen) to cause muscle contraction.

U.S. Patent No. 10,695,575 - "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,695,575, "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field," issued June 30, 2020 (’575 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’852 Patent: the limitations of prior aesthetic treatments for enhancing muscle appearance and the inefficiency of existing magnetic stimulation devices (’575 Patent, col. 2:15-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific method for toning muscles. The method involves positioning two separate applicators on a patient, each housing a magnetic coil. The method requires charging energy storage devices and then discharging them to the coils to generate magnetic impulses with specific magnetic flux densities (0.1 to 7 Tesla) and durations (3 µs to 3 ms). The method also includes a step of cooling the coils and applying pluralities of impulses to cause muscle contraction (’575 Patent, Abstract; cl. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a specific protocol for using dual applicators to achieve aesthetic muscle toning, building upon the foundational device technology described in the patent family (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A method for toning muscles of a patient.
    • Positioning a first applicator (with a first coil) and independently positioning a second applicator (with a second coil) on the patient.
    • Charging a first and a second energy storage device.
    • Discharging the first storage device to the first coil to generate a first impulse of a first time-varying magnetic field.
    • Discharging the second storage device to the second coil to generate a first impulse of a second time-varying magnetic field.
    • The impulses must have a magnetic flux density between 0.1 and 7 Tesla and an impulse duration between 3 µs and 3 ms.
    • Cooling each of the first and second coils.
    • Applying a plurality of impulses from each coil to muscle fibers to cause contraction and toning.

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 (’634 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for toning muscles in the abdomen or buttocks. The method involves placing an applicator on the patient, coupling it with an adjustable flexible belt, and applying a time-varying magnetic field with a specified magnetic fluence sufficient to cause muscle contraction (’634 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "TEMS therapy" services, which involve placing applicators on patients' abdomens and buttocks and securing them with belts to perform treatments, infringe the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶108-113). The complaint includes a visual of a patient with a belted applicator performing a gluteal treatment (Compl. p. 4, 23).

U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519 - "Magnetic Stimulation Methods and Devices for Therapeutic Treatments"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519, "Magnetic Stimulation Methods and Devices for Therapeutic Treatments," issued May 2, 2017 (’519 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a magnetic stimulation device designed for efficient cooling, a problem in high-intensity magnetic field generators. The invention comprises a device with a coil, a casing, and at least one blower arranged on the coil's circumference, configured so that fluid can flow between the coil and casing to cool both the upper and lower sides of the coil (’519 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶121).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused Renasculpt device infringes by including applicators that encase fans ("blowers") arranged on the circumference of the coils to create airflow for heat dissipation (Compl. ¶¶128-131). This allegation is supported by a promotional image from the accused infringer showing an applicator with "DOUBLE FANS" for "Better heat dissipation" (Compl. p. 52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are devices referred to as "TEMS" (Transcutaneous Electromagnetic Muscle Strengthening) devices and the associated "TEMS therapy" services offered by Defendants (Compl. ¶36). The complaint specifically identifies two such devices: the "Renasculpt" device and the "UMS Sculptor" device, alleging they are "knockoff" versions of Plaintiff’s EMSCULPT product (Compl. ¶¶9, 40, 42, 43). An Instagram post from a defendant promotes the accused Renasculpt device as the "T.E.M.S. Therapy" machine (Compl. p. 18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused devices are alleged to utilize electromagnetic waves to generate powerful muscle contractions for aesthetic body-contouring (Compl. ¶36). Defendants’ marketing materials claim a 30-minute session is equivalent to 20,000 squats or crunches and that the therapy builds muscle while reducing fat (Compl. p. 18). The devices use applicators that are placed on various body regions, such as the abdomen and buttocks, and are sometimes secured with flexible belts (Compl. p. 4, 23). The complaint alleges Defendants market these devices as cheaper and equally effective alternatives to Plaintiff's EMSCULPT device (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’852 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A treatment device for enhancing a visual appearance of a patient... The accused devices are promoted as aesthetic body-contouring devices that tone muscles and reduce fat. ¶66 col. 2:4-6
...comprising: a first magnetic field generating coil and a second magnetic field generating coil, wherein both of the first and second magnetic field generating coils are planar; The accused Renasculpt device is alleged to include "Double layer Coil[s]" that promotional materials claim "generate[] deeper and stronger high intensity electromagnetic effects." ¶67 col. 11:5-13
a first applicator, wherein the first applicator comprises the first magnetic field generating coil... The accused devices include applicators, such as the "Two Magnetic Stimulation Applicators" of the Renasculpt device, that house the magnetic field generating coils. ¶68 col. 9:48-50
wherein the first magnetic field generating coil is configured to generate a first time-varying magnetic field with a repetition rate in a range of 1 Hz to 300 Hz and a magnetic flux density in a range of 0.1 Tesla to 7 Tesla... Marketing materials for the accused devices allegedly represent an "Energy intensity" of 0-7 Tesla and a frequency of "150hz." ¶69 col. 4:1-3
wherein each of the first and the second magnetic field generating coils is configured to generate a plurality of pulses... Promotional videos for the accused devices allegedly depict applicators generating what appear to be pulses on the patient's skin. A promotional video depicts the accused Renasculpt applicator generating pulses on a patient's skin (Compl. p. 36). ¶72 col. 15:40-42
...wherein each of the plurality of pulses comprises a first plurality of pulses having a first repetition rate and a second plurality of pulses having a second repetition rate, wherein the first repetition rate differs from the second repetition rate... The accused devices are alleged to have multiple different treatment modes, suggesting they generate magnetic pulses at several different frequencies or repetition rates. ¶74 col. 15:50-59
wherein the first and the second magnetic field generating coils are configured to be placed proximate to a body region...to cause a contraction of at least one muscle in the body region... Promotional materials for the accused devices depict applicators positioned on body regions like the buttocks and abdomen to cause "SUPRAMAXIMAL MUSCLE CONTRACTIONS." ¶77 col. 18:35-40
...wherein the body region comprises one of a buttocks or an abdomen. The accused devices are shown in promotional materials being applied to patients' buttocks and abdomens. ¶78 col. 23:45-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused devices' alleged "Double layer Coil[s]" (Compl. ¶67) meets the claim limitation of "a first magnetic field generating coil and a second magnetic field generating coil." The defense may argue this describes a single coil with two layers, not two distinct coils as the claim may require. The construction of "a first...and a second" will be critical.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on marketing materials for the devices' technical specifications (e.g., "0-7 Tesla," "150hz") (Compl. ¶¶69-70). A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused devices actually operate within the claimed numerical ranges during use. Further, what evidence demonstrates that the "multiple different treatment modes" (Compl. ¶74) necessarily satisfy the specific limitation of generating a first plurality of pulses at one rate and a second plurality at a different rate within a single treatment protocol?

’575 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for toning muscles of a patient... Defendants perform "TEMS therapy services" which are advertised as aesthetic body-contouring treatments that tone muscles. ¶87 col. 2:4-6
...positioning a first applicator on the patient... and independently positioning a second applicator on the patient... Defendants' therapy services involve positioning applicators on various body regions. Promotional materials for the accused devices state they have "2 or 4 applicators" that can work simultaneously. ¶¶88-89 col. 10:50-54
...discharging the first energy storage device to the first magnetic field generating coil such that a first impulse of a first time-varying magnetic field is generated... The accused devices are alleged to require and discharge energy from storage devices to their applicators to generate electromagnetic fields. ¶91 col. 12:1-24
...wherein the first impulse... and the first impulse... each have a magnetic flux density in a range between 0.1 Tesla and 7 Tesla, and wherein the...impulse duration in a range between 3 µs and 3 ms; Product specifications for the accused devices allegedly state a magnetic flux density of up to 7 Tesla and a "Pulse duration" or "Pulse Width" of 300-310 µs, which falls within the claimed ranges. ¶93 col. 22:7-12
...cooling each of the first and the second magnetic field generating coils... Promotional materials allegedly show the accused devices include an "Air cooling system" and applicators that house "DOUBLE FANS" to dissipate heat. A promotional photo shows the fans inside an applicator (Compl. p. 45). ¶95 col. 3:29-32
...applying a first plurality of impulses... and applying a second plurality of impulses...to muscle fibers... to cause muscles of the body region to contract... Promotional videos allegedly depict the applicators of the accused devices positioned on patients' body regions and inducing visible muscle contractions. ¶96 col. 20:6-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: What level of "cooling" is required by the claim? Practitioners may dispute whether the presence of general-purpose heat dissipation fans (Compl. ¶95) satisfies a specific method step of "cooling each of the...coils," or if a more active, integrated cooling process is required by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: Since this is a method claim, infringement requires proof that Defendants (or their employees/customers at their direction) perform all the steps. While the complaint alleges the devices are capable of meeting the technical parameters, a central evidentiary question will be what protocols Defendants actually use in their "TEMS therapy services" and whether those protocols meet every limitation of Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’852 Patent

  • The Term: "a first magnetic field generating coil and a second magnetic field generating coil"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement allegation relies on marketing material describing a "Double layer Coil[s]" (Compl. ¶67). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a single component with two layers of wiring can meet a limitation that recites two distinct components ("a first...and a second").
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description of a "plurality of the magnetic field generating devices" could be argued to encompass various multi-coil configurations (’634 Patent, col. 7:22-25).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 12 of the related ’634 patent explicitly depicts two separate and independent circuits (52, 57), each with its own magnetic field generating device (56, 61), suggesting that "a first...and a second" coil refers to two physically and electrically distinct structures (’634 Patent, Fig. 12).

For the ’575 Patent

  • The Term: "cooling each of the first and the second magnetic field generating coils"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory rests on allegations that the accused devices contain an "Air cooling system" and fans (Compl. ¶95). The dispute will likely center on whether this claim element requires an active, specific cooling step integrated into the method's sequence, or if the passive operation of heat-dissipating fans during treatment is sufficient.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the casing may comprise a "blower or blowers which ensure cooling," which could be read to cover simple fans (’634 Patent, col. 3:29-32). A promotional photo from the accused infringer shows "DOUBLE FANS" for "Better heat dissipation" (Compl. p. 45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses more complex cooling systems, such as a "Peltier cooler" or "Stirling engine cooling system," suggesting that "cooling" may imply more than simple air circulation (’634 Patent, col. 10:25-32). The claim is a method step, which may imply an action beyond the mere presence of a feature.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the method claims in the ’575 and ’634 patents. The allegations are based on Defendants actively encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers and employees to use the accused devices in a manner that directly infringes (Compl. ¶¶99, 116). The complaint specifically alleges that Defendant Sandhu offers "training services" for using the TEMS devices (Compl. ¶97).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from Defendants' purchase of a genuine EMSCULPT device on September 28, 2018, which allegedly put them on notice of BTL and its patent-protected technology (Compl. ¶45). The complaint also asserts that BTL sent cease-and-desist letters informing Defendants of the patent infringement, to which they allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶12).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: can the accused devices' "Double layer Coil," described in marketing materials, be proven to be the same as the claimed "first... and a second... planar" coil, or will discovery reveal a fundamental structural difference that places the devices outside the literal scope of the claims?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proving the method: for the asserted method claims, what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that Defendants' "TEMS therapy" services, as actually practiced, perform every claimed step, including meeting precise numerical parameters for impulse duration and flux density, and actively performing a "cooling" step as the patents may require?
  • The case will also likely involve a question of intent: given the allegations that Defendants first purchased a genuine device, used Plaintiff's own marketing photos and clinical data, and ignored cease-and-desist letters, a central issue for a jury may be whether this pattern of conduct demonstrates the objective recklessness required for a finding of willful infringement.