DCT
2:23-cv-00767
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 as all Defendants are residents of the District of Utah and are alleged to have committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ electromagnetic muscle stimulation devices and services for aesthetic body contouring infringe a patent related to methods of treating biological structures with a magnetic field.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using high-intensity, time-varying magnetic fields to induce supramaximal muscle contractions for non-invasive aesthetic purposes like muscle toning and shaping.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent an infringement notice letter to Defendants on May 11, 2022. It further alleges that on June 10, 2022, Defendant Dream Body agreed to discontinue use of an accused device but subsequently continued to promote, sell, and use infringing devices and services. This history establishes a basis for the allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-01-01 | BTL launches its EMSCULPT device |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 Issues |
| 2022-05-11 | BTL sends infringement notice letter to Defendants |
| 2022-06-10 | Defendant Dream Body agrees to discontinue use of accused device |
| 2023-03-01 | Defendants allegedly post Instagram advertisement for accused device |
| 2023-08-22 | Defendants allegedly post video showing operation of accused device |
| 2023-10-24 | 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, issued November 19, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior aesthetic treatments using mechanical or thermal energy carried risks such as panniculitis (inflammation of subcutaneous fat) or thermal damage and were unable to effectively provide muscle shaping, toning, or volumization ('634 Patent, col. 2:15-31). Existing magnetic field devices were described as inefficient, wasting energy and producing unwanted heat due to eddy currents within the device components ('634 Patent, col. 2:36-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for non-invasively toning muscles by applying a time-varying magnetic field with a flux density sufficient to induce muscle contractions ('634 Patent, col. 1:56-60). This method is intended to enhance the visual appearance of a patient by targeting specific body regions, such as the buttocks as illustrated in Figure 15, to achieve aesthetic improvements like muscle toning and shaping ('634 Patent, Fig. 15; col. 2:26-31).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for non-invasive aesthetic treatment focused specifically on improving muscle structure for visual enhancement, an outcome the patent states was not satisfactorily achievable with prior art methods ('634 Patent, col. 2:26-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶¶18, 27).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method for toning muscles in a patient using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Placing a first applicator with a magnetic field generating coil in contact with 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.
- Applying the field with a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as electromagnetic muscle stimulation (“EMS”) devices, including devices marketed as “DREAMSCULPT” and an “EMS muscle build machine” (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Devices are alleged to provide "electromagnetic muscle stimulation" to targeted body regions, including the abdomen and buttocks (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). The complaint references a video showing the operation of an Accused Device, which depicts a belt holding two applicators against a patient's buttocks to cause repeated contraction of the gluteal muscles (Compl. ¶24).
- Defendants are alleged to promote the devices for providing a "16% increase in muscle mass" and "19% fat reduction," claims which the complaint asserts are derived from clinical study results for Plaintiff's own EMSCULPT device (Compl. ¶22). The complaint also alleges that Defendants offer training courses on how to operate the Accused Devices (Compl. ¶21).
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, the method comprising: | Defendants are alleged to use, sell, and offer for sale devices and treatment services for electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMS) to contour an individual's physique. | ¶18, ¶22, ¶25 | col. 18:4-15 |
| 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 have placed an applicator of the Accused Device on a patient's buttock. | ¶29 | col. 18:32-49 |
| 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; | A video allegedly shows the Accused Device's applicator is coupled to a patient with an adjustable belt to hold it to the patient's skin. | ¶24, ¶29 | col. 10:55-65 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field; | A video allegedly shows the Accused Device provides energy to the coil to generate a time-varying magnetic field. | ¶30 | col. 11:35-40 |
| and applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T·cm² to 1,500 T·cm² to the body region, | Upon information and belief, the Accused Device is alleged to provide a magnetic fluence of 50 T·cm² to 150 T·cm² to the body region. | ¶31 | col. 14:1-15 |
| 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. | The Accused Device is alleged to provide a magnetic flux density sufficient to cause muscle contraction, as shown in a video depicting repeated contraction of the gluteal muscles. | ¶24, ¶31 | col. 20:17-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The complaint, on "information and belief," alleges the Accused Device provides a magnetic fluence of 50 T·cm² to 150 T·cm² (Compl. ¶31). While this range falls within the broader claimed range of 50 T·cm² to 1,500 T·cm², it raises a key evidentiary question: what is the actual, measurable magnetic fluence produced by the Accused Device? The "information and belief" pleading standard suggests Plaintiff may not have direct evidence of this technical parameter at the time of filing.
- Scope Question: Does the term "toning muscles" require a specific outcome beyond simple muscle contraction? The patent specification describes achieving "supramaximal muscle contractions" and aesthetic effects like "muscle shaping, toning and/or volumization" ('634 Patent, col. 20:17-21; col. 2:29-31). The case may turn on whether the court construes "toning" to require these specific, heightened effects, or if any induced contraction meets the claim limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "magnetic fluence"
Context and Importance: This quantitative limitation is central to the infringement analysis. The patent defines it via an equation ("MF=Bpp*AMFGD"), making the methods for measuring peak-to-peak magnetic flux density ("Bpp") and the area of the magnetic field generating device ("AMFGD") critical ('634 Patent, col. 14:1-5). Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges a specific, narrow range on "information and belief," signaling that the actual output of the Accused Device will be a point of factual and evidentiary contention.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a specific equation for calculating the term, which could support an argument that any device whose parameters fit the equation falls within the scope, regardless of other operational characteristics ('634 Patent, col. 14:1-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly ties the claimed method to achieving specific biological effects, such as "supramaximal muscle contractions" ('634 Patent, col. 20:17-19). A party could argue that the claimed "magnetic fluence" must be interpreted as a level that is necessarily capable of producing these specific, high-level outcomes described throughout the specification.
The Term: "toning muscles"
Context and Importance: This term defines the stated purpose and outcome of the claimed method. Its construction will determine the type and level of proof required to show infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its plain meaning could be viewed as broad, but the specification provides significant detail that may support a narrower, more technical definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not further define "toning," which could support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any method that causes muscle contraction leading to increased firmness.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the invention to specific, advanced aesthetic outcomes beyond simple contraction, such as "muscle shaping, toning and/or volumization" and inducing "supramaximal muscle contractions" that "cannot be voluntarily achieved" ('634 Patent, col. 2:29-31, col. 20:17-21). This language could support a narrower construction that requires proof of these specific, enhanced physiological effects.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendants "encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers to use the Accused Device" and providing "courses for on how to operate Accused Devices" (Compl. ¶¶21, 32).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter sent by Plaintiff's counsel on May 11, 2022. The complaint further alleges that Defendants continued to infringe after representing that they would "discontinue use of the ... device," which may be used as evidence of deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶¶19-21, 33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of quantitative proof: what is the actual "magnetic fluence" produced by the Accused Devices? The case will require factual development to determine if the devices operate within the numerically defined limits of Claim 1, an issue highlighted by the complaint's narrow allegation made on "information and belief."
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "toning muscles" be satisfied by any induced muscle contraction, or does it require proof of the specific "supramaximal" contractions and aesthetic "shaping" and "volumization" effects that the patent specification repeatedly presents as the invention's objective?