DCT
1:25-cv-00108
BTL Industries Inc v. Quadcore Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Quadcore Corp. d/b/a Layton Weight Loss Clinic, Beatriz Potenza, and Roberto Potenza (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: LEE & HAYES, P.C.; PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00108, D. Utah, 07/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are residents of and maintain their principal place of business within the District of Utah.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “EMShape Neo” body-contouring devices and associated services infringe two patents related to magnetic stimulation technology for aesthetic treatments.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns non-invasive aesthetic devices that use high-intensity, time-varying magnetic fields to induce powerful muscle contractions for the purpose of body sculpting and muscle toning.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of infringement via email and FedEx on May 22, 2025, prior to filing suit, and that the parties corresponded but were unable to reach a resolution.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,636,519 & 10,478,634 |
| 2017-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519 Issues |
| 2018-06-01 | Plaintiff BTL launches its EMSCULPT® device |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 Issues |
| 2025-05-22 | Defendant allegedly begins infringing activity |
| 2025-07-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,636,519 - “Magnetic Stimulation Methods and Devices for Therapeutic Treatments”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that existing devices generating magnetic pulses for medical treatments suffer from low efficiency and waste energy, primarily because induced "eddy currents" within the device's coil generate significant unwanted heat, which limits the achievable repetition rate of the magnetic pulses and can necessitate interruptions in therapy to prevent overheating (ʼ971 Patent, col. 1:39-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device with a coil constructed from multiple, individually insulated wires, which significantly reduces the eddy currents that cause self-heating (ʼ971 Patent, col. 2:1-4). This is combined with a specific cooling arrangement where at least one blower is placed on the circumference of the coil within a casing, allowing a cooling fluid (e.g., air) to flow over both the upper and lower sides of the coil for more efficient heat dissipation (ʼ971 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-39).
- Technical Importance: This improved thermal management and efficiency enables the device to achieve higher repetition rates of magnetic pulses for longer, more continuous therapeutic sessions than was previously feasible (ʼ971 Patent, col. 2:50-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- 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 casing;
- with the blower arranged on a circumference of the coil; and
- 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.
U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 - “Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a gap in the non-invasive aesthetic treatment market, noting that conventional thermal and mechanical methods are not able to provide an "enhanced visual appearance of a muscle, e.g. muscle shaping, toning and/or volumization effect," while existing magnetic methods are limited in key parameters and do not allow for satisfactory results (’634 Patent, col. 2:26-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific method for non-invasively toning muscles. The method requires placing an applicator with a magnetic coil on a patient's abdomen or buttock, coupling it with an adjustable flexible belt, and then applying a time-varying magnetic field within a specific range of "magnetic fluence" (50 to 1,500 T cm²) that is strong enough to cause muscle contractions (ʼ634 Patent, Abstract; col. 32:51-66).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a targeted, non-invasive protocol for achieving aesthetic muscle toning and body contouring, effects that the patent positions as not readily achievable with prior art aesthetic devices (ʼ634 Patent, col. 17:4-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A method for toning muscles in a patient using time-varying magnetic fields, the method comprising:
- 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;
- 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;
- providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; and
- applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region, 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.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the “EMShape Neo” body-contouring devices and the services performed using them (Compl. ¶¶3, 37).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Devices use "time-varying magnetic fields" to deliver "High-Intensity Muscle Toning" and induce powerful muscle contractions, advertised as achieving "20,000 contractions per session" (Compl. ¶¶51, 57). The technology is described in promotional materials as "HICMMT (high intensity concentrated magnetic muscle training)" combined with radiofrequency energy (Compl. ¶58). A screenshot from the defendant's marketing materials presents a side-by-side comparison of the plaintiff's "EMSCULPT NEO" and the accused "EMSHAPE NEO," suggesting the accused product is positioned as a direct, lower-cost alternative (Compl. ¶46, p. 19). The device includes an applicator that is held against a patient's body using a flexible belt (Compl. ¶51, ¶69).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,636,519 Patent 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... | The Accused Device allegedly delivers "High-Intensity Muscle Toning" to sculpt muscles, which is achieved using time-varying magnetic fields (Compl. ¶57). | ¶57 | col. 1:8-14 |
| comprising; a connection to an energy source, a switch, a coil, an energy storage device, at least one blower and a case | The Accused Device has a casing and a power cord (energy source); the complaint alleges on information and belief that discovery will show the presence of a switch, coil, and energy storage device (Compl. ¶58). | ¶58 | col. 4:51-61 |
| with the blower arranged on a circumference of the coil | The complaint alleges on information and belief that holes visible around the applicator's circumference indicate the presence of at least one blower arranged on the circumference of an internal coil (Compl. ¶59). | ¶59 | col. 4:20-22 |
| wherein the coil and the casing are arranged in a manner that fluid can flow in-between them and... the coil is cooled by fluid flow over at least upper and lower sides of the coil | The complaint alleges that visible holes around the device indicate that a fluid (air) flows between the internal coil and casing to cool both the upper and lower sides of the coil(s) (Compl. ¶60). | ¶60 | col. 4:5-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the internal components (coil, switch, energy storage device) and their specific physical arrangement (blower on circumference, fluid flow path) are based on "information and belief" inferred from the device's external appearance, such as a power cord and cooling vents (Compl. ¶¶58-60). A central question will be what evidence supports the claim that the internal architecture of the Accused Device matches the specific structural limitations required by Claim 1, particularly the arrangement of the blower "on a circumference of the coil."
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "arranged on a circumference of the coil" may be a point of dispute. Questions may arise as to whether this requires the blower to encircle the coil, or if placement adjacent to the coil's circumference is sufficient.
10,478,634 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... wherein the body region is an abdomen or a buttock | Promotional materials allegedly show the Accused Device's applicator being placed on the abdomen and buttocks of patients (Compl. ¶68). The complaint includes a diagram from Defendant's website illustrating treatment ranges that include the abdomen and buttocks (Compl. ¶68, p. 36). | ¶68 | col. 34:35-40 |
| 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 | Images from a distributor's website allegedly show the Accused Device's applicator attached to patients using an adjustable flexible belt (Compl. ¶69). A provided image shows the applicator secured to a patient's abdomen with such a belt (Compl. ¶69, p. 38). | ¶69 | col. 30:50-65 |
| 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 Device's method of operation includes a power supply transmitting energy to the applicators to generate time-varying magnetic fields (Compl. ¶70). | ¶70 | col. 11:63-65 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² to the body region | The complaint alleges on information and belief that discovery will show the Accused Device's coils are configured to generate a magnetic field resulting in a magnetic fluence within the claimed range (Compl. ¶71). | ¶71 | col. 32:61-62 |
| wherein the time-varying magnetic field is applied... with a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction in the body region | Promotional materials for the Accused Device allegedly advertise its ability to induce "20,000 contractions per session," which is alleged to satisfy this limitation (Compl. ¶72). | ¶72 | col. 32:63-66 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the accused method meets the quantitative limitation of applying a "magnetic fluence of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm²" (Compl. ¶71). A primary point of contention will be an evidentiary one: what proof can be developed in discovery to demonstrate that the Accused Device, when operated, actually generates a magnetic fluence that falls within this specific, numerically-defined range?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’971 Patent: "blower arranged on a circumference of the coil"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed cooling mechanism, which distinguishes the invention from prior art that suffered from overheating. The infringement analysis for the ’971 Patent may turn on whether the physical layout of the Accused Device's cooling system falls within the scope of this phrase, for which the complaint relies on inferences from external vents (Compl. ¶59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the blower can be "placed around the circumference of the coil, or perpendicular to the coil" (ʼ971 Patent, col. 4:20-22). This language suggests that the arrangement is not limited to a specific configuration, potentially supporting a construction that includes various placements near the coil's periphery.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent depicts a single blower unit (13) positioned adjacent to, but not encircling, the coil (10). A defendant may argue this exemplary embodiment suggests "arranged on" means located at a point on the circumference, rather than distributed around it, thereby supporting a more limited construction.
Term from the ’634 Patent: "magnetic fluence"
- Context and Importance: The specific numerical range for "magnetic fluence" (50 to 1,500 T cm²) is a critical limitation of the asserted method claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement hinges on a quantitative measurement for which the complaint currently provides no direct evidence, instead relying on future discovery (Compl. ¶71).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a formula for calculating magnetic fluence: MF = Bpp * AMFGD, where Bpp is the maximal peak-to-peak magnetic flux density and AMFGD is the area of the magnetic field generating device (ʼ634 Patent, col. 14:1-5, Eq. 4). A party could argue that any reasonable method of measuring these two variables that results in a value within the claimed range constitutes infringement, allowing for some flexibility in measurement technique.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides numerous specific examples of device dimensions, winding areas, and flux densities (ʼ634 Patent, col. 13:17-64). A party could argue that the term should be construed in light of these specific embodiments, potentially narrowing the acceptable methodologies for measuring the area (AMFGD) or flux density (Bpp) to those consistent with the patent's examples.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants "actively encourage, promote, distribute, provide instruction for, and support the use of the Accused Device(s) by their customers" in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶44).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that Plaintiff notified Defendants of the Asserted Patents via email and FedEx on May 22, 2025, and that Defendants responded but the parties failed to resolve the dispute (Compl. ¶41, ¶61, ¶74). The complaint also references Plaintiff's public patent marking webpage as a source of notice (Compl. ¶42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural proof: For the ’971 apparatus patent, can Plaintiff develop evidence to show that the internal cooling architecture of the accused device meets the specific claim requirements of a "blower arranged on a circumference of the coil" and a fluid path that cools "at least upper and lower sides" of that coil, given that the allegations rely on inferences from external features?
- A second core issue will be quantitative infringement: For the ’634 method patent, the case may turn on an evidentiary question of whether the accused "EMShape Neo" device, when operated as intended, actually applies a "magnetic fluence" that falls within the numerically-limited range of 50 to 1,500 T cm² as required by the asserted claim.