DCT
4:23-cv-00985
BTL Industries Inc v. Pari's Medspa
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Pari's Medspa (Texas) and Syed Najam Jaffri (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00985, E.D. Tex., 11/01/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Pari's Medspa has its principal place of business in the District and Defendant Syed Najam Jaffri is a resident of the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s body-contouring device and associated services infringe a patent related to aesthetic muscle toning using magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the non-invasive aesthetic medical device market, which uses energy-based methods to achieve body contouring, fat reduction, and muscle toning without surgery.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent three letters to Defendants apprising them of the alleged infringement, beginning on June 13, 2023, prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff launches its EMSCULPT® device |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-06-13 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendants |
| 2023-07-06 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendants |
| 2023-08-21 | Plaintiff sends third notice letter to Defendants |
| 2023-11-01 | 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, "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field," issued November 19, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art non-invasive aesthetic procedures, such as those using mechanical or electromagnetic waves, as having drawbacks including the risk of undesirable side effects (e.g., panniculitis), non-homogenous results, and patient discomfort from overheating. It further states that these methods are unable to effectively provide muscle shaping, toning, or volumization, and that existing magnetic methods are inefficient and limited in their parameters. (’634 Patent, col. 2:4-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for aesthetic treatment that uses a time-varying magnetic field applied to a patient's body. The method specifies applying a magnetic field with a "magnetic flux density sufficient to induce at least muscle contraction" via an applicator held in place with a belt. The patent explains that this approach can achieve aesthetic effects like muscle toning and shaping by inducing strong, supramaximal muscle contractions that remodel the underlying biological structures. (’634 Patent, col. 2:51-62, col. 20:18-24).
- Technical Importance: The patent's approach aims to provide targeted, non-invasive muscle toning and body contouring, a capability it asserts was lacking in prior art aesthetic treatments. (’634 Patent, col. 18:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A method for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Placing an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil in contact with the patient's skin or clothing on the abdomen or a buttock.
- Coupling the applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt to hold it in place.
- 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 applied field has a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause muscle contraction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "EMSLIM NEO" device and associated body-contouring services offered by Defendants. (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Device is a non-authentic BTL device used for non-invasive body contouring. (Compl. ¶28). Its marketing materials state it is based on "high intensity focused electromagnetic energy" that "causes thousands of powerful muscle contractions which are extremely important in improving the tone and strength of your muscle." (Compl. p. 9). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendants' website showing the device being used to treat a patient's thigh. (Compl. p. 9).
- Functionally, the complaint alleges the Accused Device uses an applicator containing a magnetic-field-generating coil, which is applied to a patient's skin and held in place by a flexible belt. (Compl. ¶28). A screenshot from Defendants' Instagram shows a similar device being held onto a patient's abdomen with a strap. (Compl. p. 7). The device allegedly generates a time-varying magnetic field and applies a "magnetic flux of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²" to cause muscle contraction. (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,478,634 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, the method comprising: | Defendants advertise and perform body-contouring services using the EMSLIM NEO device, which allegedly uses time-varying magnetic fields to tone muscle. | ¶¶24, 28, p. 9 | col. 18:56-62 |
| 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 method involves applying an applicator that includes a magnetic-field-generating coil to a patient's skin. | ¶28 | col. 28:40-45 |
| 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 method uses a flexible belt to hold the applicator against the patient's skin. | ¶28 | col. 10:52-59 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; and | The accused device's coil generates a time-varying magnetic field. | ¶28 | col. 11:62-67 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region, | The accused device allegedly applies a magnetic flux of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm². | ¶28 | col. 14:17-21 |
| 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 accused device's applied magnetic field allegedly causes muscle contraction. | ¶28 | col. 20:18-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central point of contention may arise from the complaint's use of the term "magnetic flux" (Compl. ¶28) to map onto the claim's requirement of "magnetic fluence." The patent provides a specific technical definition for "magnetic fluence" based on a calculation involving peak-to-peak magnetic flux density and the area of the generating device (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-7). The case may raise the question of whether the accused device's "magnetic flux" value, as alleged, satisfies the patent's specific definition of "magnetic fluence."
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused EMSLIM NEO device actually generates a magnetic fluence within the specific numerical range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²? The allegation is made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶28), suggesting that discovery and expert analysis will be required to substantiate this central technical parameter.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "magnetic fluence"
- Context and Importance: This term is the primary technical limitation defining the intensity of the claimed method and is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused device applies a "magnetic flux" within the claimed numerical range, creating a potential dispute over whether "flux" as used by the defendant is equivalent to "fluence" as specifically defined in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain meaning of the claim simply requires a value falling within the numerical range of "50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²," and that the label used by an infringer ("flux" versus "fluence") is not dispositive. The claim itself does not recite the formula from the specification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides an explicit definition in Equation 4: "MF=Bpp*AMFGD", where MF is magnetic fluence, Bpp is the maximal peak-to-peak magnetic flux density, and AMFGD is the area of the magnetic field generating device. (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-7). A party could argue that this definition is definitional and limits the claim scope, requiring proof that the accused device's output meets this specific calculated value, not just a value that happens to be labeled similarly.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers to use the Accused Device in a manner that directly infringes the ’634 patent." (Compl. ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged awareness of the ’634 Patent "since before the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶34). This allegation is supported by reference to three pre-suit notice letters sent to Defendants, with the first dated June 13, 2023, and by Plaintiff's practice of marking its products with a reference to its online patent listing. (Compl. ¶¶24, 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical definition: does the accused device's generation of "magnetic flux," as alleged in the complaint, meet the specific definition of "magnetic fluence" as defined and claimed in the ’634 patent, which relies on a calculation involving peak-to-peak magnetic flux density and the area of the generating device?
- A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that the accused "EMSLIM NEO" device, in operation, actually generates a magnetic fluence within the claimed numerical range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² and that this parameter is what causes the alleged muscle contractions, as required by the final clause of the claim.