DCT
1:23-cv-00115
BTL Industries Inc v. Dream Body LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dream Body LLC, Aly Coleman Beauty LLC, Alyson Coleman (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maschoff Brennan Gilmore & Israelsen
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00767, D. Utah, 10/24/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah as all Defendants are residents of the district and maintain regular and established places of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ electromagnetic muscle stimulation devices and related aesthetic treatment services infringe a patent covering methods for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the non-invasive aesthetic body contouring market, which uses high-intensity focused electromagnetic energy to induce powerful muscle contractions for purposes of toning muscle and reducing fat.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendants on May 11, 2022. It further alleges that Defendants subsequently represented that they would discontinue use of an accused device but later resumed activities that Plaintiff contends are infringing.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-04-17 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff's EMSCULPT Device Launched |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-05-11 | Plaintiff's Counsel Sends Notice Letter to Defendants |
| 2022-06-10 | Defendant Allegedly Agrees to Discontinue Use of Accused Device |
| 2023-03-01 | Defendants Allegedly Post Instagram Ad for Accused Device |
| 2023-05-16 | Defendants Allegedly Advertise Class Offering Accused Device |
| 2023-08-22 | Defendants Allegedly Post Video Showing Operation of Accused Device |
| 2023-08-23 | Defendants Allegedly Post Video Advertising Services with Accused Device |
| 2023-10-24 | 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.
U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 - "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional non-invasive aesthetic treatments as having drawbacks such as the risk of panniculitis (inflammation of subcutaneous fat), non-homogenous results, and an inability to provide visual enhancement of muscle, such as toning or shaping (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-31). Existing magnetic methods are characterized as inefficient and limited in their parameters (’634 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for aesthetic treatment using a time-varying magnetic field powerful enough to induce supramaximal muscle contractions not achievable through voluntary effort (’634 Patent, col. 2:56-61; col. 20:18-24). The method involves placing an applicator with a magnetic coil onto a targeted body region, such as the abdomen or buttocks, and securing it with a belt to apply a specific magnetic fluence, thereby toning the underlying muscles (’634 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This technology offers a non-invasive method for achieving aesthetic muscle toning and body contouring, addressing patient demand for procedures with minimal risk and satisfactory results (’634 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18, ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A method for toning muscles using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Placing an applicator with a magnetic 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.
- 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.
- The applied field must have a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause muscle contraction.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims of the ’634 patent (Compl. ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as electromagnetic muscle stimulation (“EMS”) devices, including the "DREAMSCULPT" and "HIEMTPRO" devices, and treatment services using these devices (Compl. ¶18-20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges Defendants use and promote the Accused Devices to provide "electromagnetic muscle stimulation" for aesthetic treatments such as building muscle and reducing fat (Compl. ¶22, ¶25). The complaint provides a video showing two applicators held by a belt to a patient's buttocks, causing visible muscle contractions (Compl. ¶24, Ex. K).
- It is alleged that Defendants market the Accused Devices using performance claims—such as a "16% increase in muscle mass" and "19% fat reduction"—that are purportedly derived from published clinical studies for Plaintiff’s own EMSCULPT device, not from studies on the Accused Devices themselves (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’634 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| placing a first applicator ... 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 place an applicator of the Accused Device on a patient's buttock, as shown in a video exhibit. | ¶29 | col. 24:45-46 |
| 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 applicator is coupled to an adjustable belt that holds it to the patient's skin, as shown in a video exhibit. | ¶29 | col. 10:55-58 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; | The Accused Device provides energy to its magnetic field generating coil to create a time-varying magnetic field. | ¶30 | col. 11:60-65 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T·cm² to 1,500 T·cm² to the body region, | Upon information and belief, the Accused Device provides a magnetic fluence of 50 T·cm² to 150 T·cm² to the body region. | ¶31 | col. 14:19-20 |
| 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 applied magnetic field causes muscle contraction in the body region. | ¶31 | col. 2:56-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the specific "magnetic fluence" range of the Accused Device "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶31). A primary evidentiary question for the court will be whether discovery and expert analysis confirm that the Accused Devices in fact operate within the numerical range required by this claim element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "magnetic fluence"
- Context and Importance: This quantitative limitation is a cornerstone of the infringement allegation. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement is pleaded "on information and belief," signaling that this is a critical factual element for the plaintiff to prove. The patent's specific definition of the term will likely constrain the parties' arguments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may dispute the proper methodology for measuring the component values (Bpp and AMFGD) in the accused device, potentially arguing for measurement techniques that place the device inside or outside the claimed range.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides an explicit definition in Equation 4: "MF=Bpp·AMFGD," where "MF is magnetic fluence," "Bpp is maximal peak to peak magnetic flux density," and "AMFGD is area of the magnetic field generating device" (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-7). This explicit definition may limit the parties' ability to argue for a construction that deviates from the formula itself.
The Term: "in contact with a patient's skin or clothing"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the required proximity between the applicator and the patient. Its construction is important for defining the boundaries of the claimed method.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself explicitly includes both "skin or clothing," providing a basis for a scope that is not limited to direct skin contact. The specification further supports this by stating that "indirect contact may be applicator contacting the patient's skin via a spacer such as clothes, a towel or a disposable sterile cover" (’634 Patent, col. 18:37-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the claim is broad on its face, a party might argue that the core invention as described in certain embodiments centers on direct application to the skin, though the express language of the claim and specification presents a high bar for such an argument.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendants "encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers" on how to use the Accused Device in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶32). This is supported by allegations that Defendants offer "courses for on how to operate Accused Devices" (Compl. ¶21).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’634 patent. The complaint cites a notice letter sent to Defendants on May 11, 2022, and alleges Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's products and its online patent marking (Compl. ¶33). The allegation that Defendants agreed to cease infringement and later resumed the accused activities may be presented as strong evidence of deliberate conduct (Compl. ¶20-21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of quantitative proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate through discovery that the accused devices generate a "magnetic fluence" within the specific numerical range of 50 to 1,500 T·cm² required by claim 1, an allegation currently made only "on information and belief"?
- A key question for damages will be one of deliberate conduct: given the allegations that Defendants received a pre-suit notice letter, represented that they would discontinue infringement, and then allegedly resumed promoting and selling the accused devices, will the court find that the infringement was willful, potentially leading to enhanced damages?