DCT
1:25-cv-00907
BTL Industries Inc v. Advanced Medical Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Advanced Medical Inc. (Texas), Geoffrey Loveless (Texas), and Karen E. Loveless (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00907, W.D. Tex., 06/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are residents of and maintain their principal place of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s non-invasive body-contouring devices infringe patents related to methods and devices for aesthetic treatment using time-varying magnetic fields to stimulate muscle contraction.
- Technical Context: The technology involves the use of high-intensity focused electromagnetic fields to induce supramaximal muscle contractions for non-invasive aesthetic purposes, such as muscle toning and body sculpting.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of their infringing conduct and intellectual property rights via letters sent on May 7, 2025, and May 16, 2025, which may form a basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-01 | ’519 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-05-02 | ’519 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-06-01 | Plaintiff launches EMSCULPT® device |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-01-06 | Earliest alleged date of infringing advertisement |
| 2025-05-07 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendants |
| 2025-05-16 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendants |
| 2025-06-12 | 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" (Issued Nov. 19, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in prior art aesthetic treatments, noting that mechanical and thermal methods carry risks and are not able to provide "enhanced visual appearance of a muscle, e.g. muscle shaping, toning and/or volumization effect" (’634 Patent, col. 2:26-30). Existing magnetic methods are described as limited by low efficiency and unwanted heat generation from eddy currents within the device coils (’634 Patent, col. 2:36-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for aesthetic muscle toning by applying a time-varying magnetic field sufficient to cause muscle contraction (’634 Patent, col. 1:55-60). The method involves placing an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil on a specific body region, such as the abdomen or buttock, securing it with a flexible belt, and applying a specified range of "magnetic fluence" to induce the contractions (’634 Patent, col. 21:55-22:4).
- Technical Importance: This technology established a method for non-invasively targeting and toning muscles for aesthetic purposes, a capability the complaint alleges was not present in the market prior to Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- Essential elements of 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 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 magnetic field is applied with a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519 - "Magnetic Stimulation Methods and Devices for Therapeutic Treatments" (Issued May 2, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies efficiency limitations in existing magnetic stimulation devices (’519 Patent, col. 1:39-41). Specifically, large electrical currents induce unwanted "eddy currents" within the device coils themselves, generating significant heat that must be managed and wasting energy, which in turn limits the achievable repetition rates and magnetic flux density (’519 Patent, col. 1:43-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a magnetic stimulation device designed for improved efficiency and cooling (’519 Patent, col. 2:1-5). It features a coil constructed from individually insulated wires to reduce internal eddy currents and a specific cooling architecture where at least one blower is "arranged on a circumference of the coil" inside a casing, enabling cooling fluid (e.g., air) to flow "over at least upper and lower sides of the coil" (’519 Patent, col. 2:25-30; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This device design's improved efficiency allows for higher repetition rates of magnetic pulses and higher magnetic flux density, enabling more effective therapeutic treatments than previously possible (’519 Patent, col. 2:18-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A magnetic stimulation device producing a time varying magnetic field for treatment.
- Comprising a connection to an energy source, a switch, a coil, an energy storage device, at least one blower and a case.
- The blower is arranged on a circumference of the coil.
- The coil and the casing are arranged in a manner that fluid can flow in-between them.
- The coil is cooled by fluid flow over at least upper and lower sides of the coil.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Renu Sculpt Plus" and "Em-Con Body Shaping" devices (collectively, the "Accused Devices") (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Devices are described as non-invasive body contouring treatments that use "high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technology" to simultaneously build muscle and burn fat (Compl. p. 18). Promotional materials cited in the complaint state the technology induces "powerful muscle contractions—called supramaximal contractions—that go far beyond what's possible through exercise alone" (Compl. p. 18).
- The complaint alleges the devices include an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil, which is held against a patient's skin with a flexible belt (Compl. ¶¶51, 59). A promotional image of an applicator shows vents, which the complaint alleges indicates the presence of at least one internal blower for cooling (Compl. ¶71; p. 34).
- The complaint alleges the Accused Devices are marketed as offering results such as "25% Muscle Gain" and "30% Fat Reduction," and directly compares them to Plaintiff's EMSCULPT® product (Compl. ¶49; p. 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 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' services allegedly tone muscles using time-varying magnetic fields, as evidenced by marketing claims of "muscle growth" and "enhances muscle definition" using "High-Intensity Electromagnetic (HIFEM) Energies." | ¶57 | col. 1:55-60 |
| 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 Devices allegedly include at least one applicator with a magnetic field generating coil, and promotional materials depict these applicators being placed on patients' abdomens and buttocks. A cited promotional video shows an applicator being placed on a patient's abdomen (Compl. p. 25). | ¶58 | col. 10:52-59 |
| 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 Devices' applicators being attached to patients using an adjustable flexible belt. A cited image shows two applicators held to a patient's abdomen by a black, flexible belt (Compl. p. 27). | ¶59 | col. 10:52-54 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the Accused Devices provide energy from a power supply to the applicators to generate time-varying magnetic fields. | ¶60 | col. 11:62-12:2 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region, | Based on information and belief, the complaint alleges the devices are configured to generate a magnetic field with a magnetic flux density and area sufficient to result in a magnetic fluence within the claimed range. | ¶61 | col. 14:19-22 |
| 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. | Marketing materials for the Accused Devices allegedly promote the ability to cause muscle contractions, referring to them as "supramaximal contractions" and technology that "contracts muscle fibers at an intensity that boosts blood circulation." | ¶62 | col. 1:57-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation regarding the specific "magnetic fluence" range of 50 to 1,500 T cm² is made on "information and belief" and will depend on technical evidence obtained through discovery (Compl. ¶61). A central question will be whether the Accused Devices actually operate within this specific, numerically-defined range.
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory is based on Defendants' performance of a method. A question may arise as to what evidence demonstrates that Defendants or their customers perform all steps of the claimed method, including the specific acts of placing and coupling the applicator as claimed.
U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A magnetic stimulation device producing a time varying magnetic field for treatment, comprising; a connection to an energy source, a switch, a coil, an energy storage device, at least one blower and a case; | The complaint alleges the Accused Devices are magnetic stimulation devices that produce a time-varying magnetic field. It alleges the presence of these components based on illuminated screens indicating a power source, a casing that forms the exterior of the applicator, and holes on the applicator that allegedly indicate the presence of at least one blower. A cited image shows the Renu Sculpt Plus device with a close-up of an applicator's vented surface (Compl. p. 34). | ¶71 | col. 1:33-35; col. 2:9-11 |
| with the blower arranged on a circumference of the coil; | Based on information and belief, the complaint alleges the device includes a blower arranged on the circumference of an internal coil. This allegation relies on an opportunity for future discovery. | ¶72 | col. 3:32-35 |
| wherein the coil and the casing are arranged in a manner that fluid can flow in-between them and wherein the coil is cooled by fluid flow over at least upper and lower sides of the coil. | The complaint alleges that vents on the applicator casing indicate that a fluid (air) is used for cooling. It alleges on information and belief that this fluid flows between the internal coil and casing and over the coil's upper and lower sides. | ¶73 | col. 3:36-42 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The allegations regarding the internal structure of the Accused Devices—specifically the arrangement of a blower "on a circumference of the coil" and the fluid flow path "over at least upper and lower sides of the coil"—are based on inference from external product photographs and are explicitly subject to future discovery (Compl. ¶¶72, 73). A key question will be whether the internal architecture of the Accused Devices, once revealed, matches these specific structural and functional limitations.
- Scope Questions: The construction of the term "on a circumference of the coil" may be a central issue. The analysis will question whether this requires a specific geometric arrangement (e.g., multiple blowers surrounding the coil) or can be read more broadly to cover other cooling configurations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
From the ’634 Patent
- The Term: "applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²"
- Context and Importance: This term provides a specific numerical range that defines a core aspect of the claimed method. Infringement will hinge on whether the Accused Devices, when used as instructed, deliver a magnetic fluence that falls within this range. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a quantitative limitation that will require expert testimony and technical evidence to prove or disprove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a wide range of possible magnetic fluences, starting from "at least 5, 10, 15 or 20 T·cm²" and going up to 60,000 T·cm², which may suggest the claimed range is one of many possible effective ranges (’634 Patent, col. 14:7-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself recites a precise, bounded numerical range. The specification provides this exact range as an "even more preferabl[e]" embodiment, suggesting a deliberate selection of these specific values as being particularly effective (’634 Patent, col. 14:19-22).
From the ’519 Patent
- The Term: "with the blower arranged on a circumference of the coil"
- Context and Importance: This structural limitation is central to the patent's claimed improvement in cooling efficiency. The infringement analysis will depend on the physical layout of the cooling components inside the Accused Devices. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint infers its presence from external vents, making its actual internal configuration a critical and disputed fact.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states "At least one blower 4 can be placed around the circumference of the magnetic field generating device," which could be read to mean a single blower located anywhere along the periphery, not necessarily surrounding it (’519 Patent, col. 3:32-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent depicts the blower (4) as a structure that appears to encircle the coil (1), with arrows (6) showing airflow from this circumferential placement over the top and bottom of the coil. This figure may support a narrower construction requiring a more encompassing arrangement around the coil's perimeter (’519 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:36-42).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by actively encouraging, promoting, and providing instructions for the use of the Accused Devices in a manner that directly infringes the asserted patents, with the knowledge and intent that their customers will commit infringing acts (Compl. ¶41).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the Asserted Patents since at least May 7, 2025, when Plaintiff sent an email and FedEx letter informing them of their infringing conduct. The complaint also cites Plaintiff's public patent marking website as a source of knowledge (Compl. ¶¶40, 64, 74).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given that the complaint's allegations regarding the internal device architecture (e.g., the specific arrangement of the blower relative to the coil in the ’519 patent) and key performance parameters (e.g., the numerical "magnetic fluence" range in the ’634 patent) are based on external observation and "information and belief," can Plaintiff obtain evidence through discovery that confirms these claims, or will a factual mismatch emerge?
- A second key issue will be one of structural and functional scope: how will the court construe the specific structural limitation "with the blower arranged on a circumference of the coil" (’519 Patent) and the functional cooling limitation "wherein the coil is cooled by fluid flow over at least upper and lower sides" (’519 Patent)? The case may turn on whether the actual, internal cooling mechanism of the Accused Devices performs in the specific manner required by these claim elements.