DCT
2:23-cv-00705
BTL Industries Inc v. Seattle Skin Body LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BTL Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Seattle Skin and Body LLC (Washington); Elizabeth Olson (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lee & Hayes, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00705, W.D. Wash., 05/12/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Seattle Skin and Body LLC is a Washington limited liability company with its principal place of business in the district, and Defendant Elizabeth Olson resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "EMS SCULPTING" body-contouring services infringe a patent related to aesthetic muscle toning using time-varying magnetic fields.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves non-invasive aesthetic treatments that use high-intensity focused electromagnetic fields to induce muscle contractions for body sculpting and toning purposes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of the asserted patent via a letter dated one month prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-01 | ’634 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-11-19 | ’634 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-04-12 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendants alleging infringement |
| 2023-04-19 | Defendants advertise accused services on Facebook |
| 2023-05-03 | Defendants advertise accused services on Instagram |
| 2023-05-12 | 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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634, "Aesthetic Method of Biological Structure Treatment by Magnetic Field," issued November 19, 2019 (’634 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of then-current non-invasive aesthetic procedures, such as mechanical or thermal treatments, noting they carry risks like overheating or panniculitis and are not able to provide an "enhanced visual appearance of a muscle" (’634 Patent, col. 2:15-32). It further states that existing magnetic methods are limited in key parameters that prevent satisfactory results (’634 Patent, col. 2:32-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for aesthetic treatment that uses a time-varying magnetic field powerful enough to induce muscle contractions (’634 Patent, Abstract). The method involves placing an applicator with a magnetic field-generating coil on a specific body region, such as the abdomen or buttocks, and applying a magnetic field of a specific intensity (fluence) to cause muscles to contract for toning purposes (’634 Patent, col. 3:11-20).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this technology created a new market for non-invasive aesthetic body contouring using high-intensity, focused electromagnetic energy to tone and firm muscle (Compl. ¶16-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A method for toning muscles in a patient using time-varying magnetic fields, 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.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks judgment that Defendants have infringed "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶26, p. 10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "EMS SCULPTING" device and the associated body-contouring services offered by Defendants (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the accused services use a device with an applicator containing a magnetic field-generating coil (Compl. ¶29). This applicator is allegedly held to a patient’s skin with a flexible belt to treat the abdomen and buttocks (Compl. ¶29). The complaint further alleges the device generates a time-varying magnetic field that causes muscle contraction and applies a magnetic flux within the range claimed by the ’634 Patent (Compl. ¶29). A representative image from Defendants' marketing materials shows an applicator strapped to a person's abdomen during a procedure (Compl. p. 6). Defendants are alleged to market the service as being "designed to reduce fat and build muscle" (Compl. ¶25).
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 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 use an applicator with a magnetic field generating coil to treat the abdomen and buttocks of patients (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 10:51-54 |
| 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 | Defendants are alleged to hold the applicator to the patient's skin using a flexible belt (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 10:56-57 |
| providing energy to the magnetic field generating coil in order to generate a time-varying magnetic field | Defendants' device is alleged to generate a time-varying magnetic field from a magnetic field generating coil (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 12:1-3 |
| applying a magnetic fluence of 50 T cm2 to 1,500 T cm2 to the body region | Upon information and belief, the device is alleged to apply a magnetic flux within the specified range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 14:8-15 |
| 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 device is alleged to cause muscle contraction of the abdomen and buttocks (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 17:10-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific technical operating parameters of the accused device, particularly the magnetic fluence range, are made "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶29). This raises the evidentiary question of what proof Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that the accused device in fact generates a magnetic fluence that falls within the numerically-limited range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "magnetic fluence"
Context and Importance
The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will likely depend on the measured or calculated "magnetic fluence" of the accused device. The claim recites a specific numerical range for this parameter, making its definition and measurement central to determining whether the accused method falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a specific formula for "magnetic fluence" at Equation 4, defining it as the maximal peak-to-peak magnetic flux density multiplied by the area of the magnetic field generating device (’634 Patent, col. 14:1-7). Parties may argue this explicit definition should control, applying to any device that meets the formula regardless of its internal construction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction may argue that the term must be interpreted in the context of the patent's disclosed embodiments. For example, one might suggest that the claimed "magnetic fluence" can only be achieved by devices incorporating the specific efficient circuit designs disclosed in Figures 5a and 5b, which are described as improvements that "simplify the circuits used, increase efficiency of energy usage and provide higher safety" (’634 Patent, col. 13:4-6).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by "encouraging, promoting, and instructing customers to use the Accused Device in a manner that directly infringes" Claim 1 of the ’634 Patent (Compl. ¶33).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on both constructive and actual notice. The complaint alleges Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s products and its patent marking website pre-suit, and that Plaintiff provided Defendants with explicit notice of the ’634 patent and their alleged infringement via a letter dated April 12, 2023, approximately one month before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical evidence: can the plaintiff substantiate its "information and belief" allegations by producing evidence that the accused "EMS SCULPTING" device, when used as advertised, applies a "magnetic fluence" that falls within the specific numerical range of 50 T cm² to 1,500 T cm² as recited in Claim 1?
- A key question regarding damages will be one of culpability: did the defendants' alleged continuation of their "EMS SCULPTING" services after receiving the April 12, 2023 notice letter constitute willful infringement, potentially exposing them to a judicial finding of an exceptional case or an award of enhanced damages?