DCT
4:25-cv-01282
BTL Industries Inc v. Modifi Laser & Body Sculpting LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware/Massachusetts)
- Defendant: Modifi Laser & Body Sculpting LLC and Kristtal Elizabeth Bridges (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Heartfield Law Firm; Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01282, S.D. Tex., 03/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Defendants are residents of and maintain their principal place of business within the Southern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' aesthetic body-contouring services, which utilize a non-BTL device, infringe a patent directed to methods for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to non-invasive aesthetic medical devices that use high-intensity, focused electromagnetic fields to induce supramaximal muscle contractions for body sculpting and muscle toning.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent multiple notice letters and emails to Defendants regarding the infringing conduct starting on June 13, 2023, nearly two years before the complaint was filed, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-01-06 | Alleged Start of Infringing Activity |
| 2023-06-13 | Plaintiff Allegedly Informs Defendants of Infringement via Email |
| 2025-03-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 addresses the limitations of existing aesthetic treatments, noting that mechanical and thermal methods have drawbacks and are not able to enhance the visual appearance of muscle (e.g., shaping, toning, or volumization) (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-32). It also identifies engineering challenges in prior magnetic field devices, such as low efficiency, energy waste, and unwanted heat generation caused by eddy currents (’634 Patent, col. 2:36-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for aesthetic treatment, such as muscle toning, by applying a time-varying magnetic field to a patient's body region (’634 Patent, Abstract). The method involves placing an applicator containing a magnetic field generating coil onto a specific body region and using a power source to generate a magnetic field with sufficient flux density to induce muscle contractions, thereby enhancing the visual appearance of the treated area (’634 Patent, col. 3:11-31; col. 20:10-14).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for non-invasive muscle toning and body sculpting, representing an advancement over prior aesthetic treatments that primarily targeted skin or fat (Compl. ¶25).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶49-50).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- 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 an abdomen or a buttock.
- Coupling the first applicator to the patient with an adjustable flexible belt.
- 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 magnetic field has a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief requests a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶ A, p. 38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Device(s)" are body-contouring devices used by Defendants to provide aesthetic services (Compl. ¶32). Promotional materials in the complaint identify these devices and associated services with names such as "Emsculptor" and "EMSCULPTOR NEO" (Compl. ¶51; p. 15, 21).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Device(s) are alleged to perform a non-invasive procedure that "stimulates an impressive 20,000 muscle contractions in just 30 minutes" to reduce fat, tighten skin, and increase muscle mass (Compl. ¶51; p. 15). Defendants' booking website describes the service as using "High-Intensity Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation (HIEMS)" to create "a more defined physique" (Compl. p. 26). The complaint alleges the Accused Device(s) are not authentic BTL devices and are not FDA-approved (Compl. ¶¶46-47).
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... | Defendants’ promotional materials describe a service that "visibly tone[s] her abdomen" and uses "High-Intensity Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation" to achieve results like "25% Muscle Gain." | ¶51; p. 25-26 | col. 19:1-2 |
| 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; | Defendants are alleged to place applicators on patients' abdomens or buttocks. A promotional image depicts an applicator placed on a patient's abdomen. | ¶52; p. 28 | col. 18:35-40 |
| 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; | Promotional materials allegedly depict the Accused Device's applicators being attached to patients using an adjustable flexible belt. An image shows an applicator held onto an abdomen with a black strap. | ¶53; p. 28 | col. 10:52-63 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; | On information and belief, the complaint alleges the Accused Device(s) include a power supply that transmits energy to the applicators to generate time-varying magnetic fields. | ¶54 | col. 11:61-67 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region, | On information and belief, the complaint alleges that the Accused Device's coils are configured to generate a time-varying magnetic field with a magnetic flux density and area sufficient to result in a magnetic fluence within the claimed range. | ¶55 | col. 14:6-15 |
| 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' advertising allegedly promotes the ability to generate magnetic fields sufficient to cause muscle contractions, claiming the procedure "stimulates an impressive 20,000 muscle contractions in just 30 minutes." An advertisement illustrates this claim with the text "20,000 Crunches In 30 Minutes." | ¶56; p. 15, 31 | col. 20:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the Accused Device(s) actually apply a "magnetic fluence" within the specific range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² recited in claim 1. The complaint pleads this element "on information and belief," suggesting that this will be a key area for discovery and may require expert analysis of the device's technical specifications and performance (Compl. ¶55).
- Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of whether the marketing term "High-Intensity Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation (HIEMS)" is technically synonymous with the method described in the patent, including its specific parameters for magnetic fields and fluence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "magnetic fluence"
Context and Importance: This term is a central technical limitation of claim 1, defined by a specific numerical range (50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²). The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the output of the Accused Device(s) falls within this range. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving infringement of such a precise quantitative limitation is often a critical evidentiary challenge.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a specific formula for calculating magnetic fluence: MF = BPP * AMFGD (maximal peak to peak magnetic flux density multiplied by the area of the magnetic field generating device) (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-4). A party could argue that any device whose parameters satisfy this equation falls within the claim, regardless of the device's underlying design or marketing terminology.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term must be understood in the context of the specific embodiments and treatment parameters described in the specification. For example, the detailed description discusses achieving certain muscle contraction types (e.g., supramaximal contractions) and biological effects (e.g., apoptosis of fat cells), which could be argued to implicitly limit the scope of the claimed fluence to levels that produce those specific outcomes (’634 Patent, col. 20:15-24; col. 26:22-30).
The Term: "in contact with a patient's skin or clothing"
Context and Importance: The claim language requires the applicator to be "in contact." The method of application of the accused service will be critical. If the service can be performed without direct physical contact, it could create a non-infringement argument.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "in contact" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any physical touching of the applicator with the skin or clothing, as alleged in the complaint and depicted in its exhibits (Compl. ¶53; p. 28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification itself contemplates a non-contact embodiment, stating that "the positioning member may hold the applicator including the magnetic field generating device in no contact with patient's skin" (’634 Patent, col. 10:60-63). A defendant could cite this passage to argue that the patentee knew how to claim a non-contact method but chose not to, thereby disclaiming that scope from this particular claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have been aware of the ’634 Patent since at least June 13, 2023, as a result of an email from Plaintiff's counsel (Compl. ¶35). It further alleges awareness based on BTL's public patent labeling webpage, which identifies the patent as covering its EMSCULPT® device (Compl. ¶35). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶58).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff, through discovery and expert testimony, demonstrate that the Accused Device(s) generate a "magnetic fluence" that falls within the specific numerical range of 50 to 1,500 T cm² recited in Claim 1? The complaint's pleading of this critical limitation on "information and belief" highlights it as a primary factual hurdle.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: how will the court interpret the phrase "in contact with," given that the claim requires contact while the patent specification discloses non-contact embodiments? The resolution of this term's scope could be dispositive depending on the precise manner in which Defendants' services are administered.