BTL Industries v. BeRejuved Inc.: EMS Device Patent Suit Settles in 97 Days
BTL Industries, Inc., holder of four patents covering electromagnetic muscle stimulation chair, EMSculpting, and non-surgical facial lift technology, filed suit against BeRejuved Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The case resolved in under 100 days via a confidential settlement, with BTL dismissing the complaint with prejudice — a swift resolution typical of cases where a patent holder moves early and the accused party faces clear infringement exposure.
BTL’s four-patent EMS enforcement action ends in swift confidential settlement
On 21 August 2025, BTL Industries, Inc. filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-06916) against BeRejuved Inc., asserting four patents — US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2, and US9636519B2 — covering electromagnetic muscle stimulation chair devices, EMSculpting body contouring systems, and EMS non-surgical facial lift technology. The accused products are directly marketed in the aesthetic and wellness space under product lines that overlap with BTL’s core commercial portfolio.
The case closed on 26 November 2025, just 97 days after filing, when BTL filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), citing a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. Because BeRejuved had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, BTL was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. The with-prejudice designation means BTL has permanently relinquished its right to re-assert these specific claims against BeRejuved — a concession that typically accompanies a substantive settlement rather than a capitulation.
The 97-day resolution is notably rapid for a multi-patent SDNY infringement action and suggests that BeRejuved had limited appetite or resources to mount a prolonged defence. The confidential nature of the settlement prevents public assessment of whether any royalty, licensing arrangement, or injunctive relief was obtained. Each party bearing its own costs is consistent with an early-stage settlement where neither side has invested heavily in litigation expenses — though the public record is silent on what commercial consideration, if any, changed hands.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 97 days
97 days — faster than the median SDNY patent case, suggesting early settlement pressure
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a complaint without court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. Here, BTL elected to dismiss with prejudice — meaning the claims are extinguished permanently. This is the standard mechanism used when a settlement agreement has been reached and the plaintiff wishes to close the case cleanly while binding both parties to the negotiated terms.
Settlement-driven closureBTL secures settlement before any substantive challenge to its patents
By settling before BeRejuved served an answer, BTL avoided any invalidity counterclaims or IPR petitions that could have put its four EMS patents at risk. The with-prejudice dismissal suggests BTL received consideration — financial, licensing, or behavioural — under the confidential agreement. Critically, none of BTL’s patents were subjected to judicial scrutiny, leaving their validity and enforceability fully intact for use in future enforcement actions against other parties.
Patents remain unchallengedBeRejuved exits litigation early — terms undisclosed
BeRejuved resolved the dispute before filing any defensive pleading, which is consistent with either a negotiated licence, a product modification commitment, or a cessation-of-sale agreement. The confidential settlement prevents public disclosure of the precise terms. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, BeRejuved cannot be sued again by BTL on these exact claims — though BTL retains the right to enforce the same patents against new infringing acts if the agreed terms are breached or if product lines change.
Exit before answer filedRapid resolution reinforces BTL’s EMS patent enforcement posture
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of EMS device patent enforcement by BTL, signalling that the company actively monitors the aesthetic device market and moves quickly against perceived infringers. For companies offering EMS chair, body sculpting, or facial lift devices that resemble BTL’s commercial portfolio, this case raises the litigation risk profile — particularly in markets where BTL holds overlapping patent families. The 97-day close time suggests BTL’s enforcement strategy is efficient and commercially calibrated.
Active enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BTL Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical aesthetic device manufacturer — holder of US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2, US9636519B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BeRejuved Inc. | Company | Aesthetic wellness provider accused of infringing BTL’s EMS chair, EMSculpting and facial lift patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Padmaja Chinta | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP | Law Firm | Representing BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason M. Drangel | Attorney | Counsel for BeRejuved Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jodi-Ann McLane | Attorney | Counsel for BeRejuved Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kerry Brenae Brownlee | Attorney | Counsel for BeRejuved Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Epstein Drangel LLP | Law Firm | Representing BeRejuved Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge P. Kevin Castel | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice states that BTL acts ‘pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement’ and invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires no court approval when the defendant has not yet answered. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative element: it extinguishes BTL’s right to re-litigate these exact claims against BeRejuved, implying the settlement delivered something of sufficient value to BTL to justify that permanent bar. The equal cost-bearing provision is neutral and does not indicate which party held the stronger negotiating position.
US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2 & US9636519B2 — EMS device patent portfolio
BTL’s asserted portfolio spans four granted U.S. patents — US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2, and US9636519B2 — covering electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMS) technology across three distinct product categories: chair-based pelvic floor and body stimulation devices, non-surgical facial lift systems, and EMSculpting body contouring platforms. The application dates range from the US14/789658 series through to US17/930888, reflecting an iterative filing strategy designed to capture successive generations of BTL’s commercial EMS technology.
BTL Industries is a major commercial player in the medical aesthetic device sector, with EMS-based products such as Emsculpt and Emsella representing significant revenue lines. This four-patent portfolio functions as an enforcement moat around BTL’s core device categories, creating substantial design-around complexity for competitors. For companies developing or distributing EMS chairs, facial lift devices, or body sculpting systems, all four patents warrant independent FTO review — particularly given BTL’s demonstrated willingness to file multi-patent infringement actions in federal court.
Should your EMS device product be cleared against BTL’s four-patent portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing electromagnetic muscle stimulation chairs, non-surgical facial lift devices, or body sculpting systems in the U.S. market faces direct exposure to one or more of the four patents asserted in this case. The combination of broad claim coverage across chair, facial, and sculpting categories means a product need not replicate all three to trigger infringement risk — a single category overlap may be sufficient. R&D teams developing next-generation EMS aesthetics hardware should treat FTO clearance against these patents as a prerequisite for commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your device specifications against the independent claims of US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2, and US9636519B2, identifying claim-by-claim overlap and surfacing prior art that could support invalidity arguments if needed. Eureka’s patent family tracking also monitors continuation filings in BTL’s broader portfolio — critical intelligence for product teams planning multi-year device roadmaps in a market where BTL continues to file and enforce.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478634B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar EMS & aesthetic device patent cases in federal district courts
Explore comparable electromagnetic muscle stimulation and aesthetic device infringement actions filed in the Southern District of New York and other federal venues.
What this case signals for the EMS aesthetic device IP landscape
BTL’s swift four-patent action in SDNY underscores the commercial stakes in the rapidly growing electromagnetic muscle stimulation device market.
BTL’s four-patent stack creates a high FTO burden for EMS device entrants
With four granted patents covering EMS chair, body sculpting, and non-surgical facial lift technology, BTL has assembled a layered IP position that is difficult to design around. Companies entering the aesthetic EMS market — particularly those offering chair-based or facial lift device categories — should conduct thorough FTO analysis before commercialisation. The rapid settlement in this case suggests BTL is willing to enforce early and aggressively.
Pre-answer settlements preserve patent validity — a strategic advantage for plaintiffs
Because BeRejuved never filed an answer, none of BTL’s four patents faced invalidity scrutiny or an IPR petition. This outcome preserves the full enforceability of BTL’s portfolio for future actions. Patent holders in competitive device markets increasingly use early-stage enforcement to deter competitors without exposing their patents to adversarial challenge — a strategy this case exemplifies.
BTL v BeRejuved — key questions answered
BTL Industries asserted four patents: US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2, and US9636519B2. These cover electromagnetic muscle stimulation chair devices, EMSculpting body contouring technology, and EMS non-surgical facial lift systems. The accused products included the EMS Chair, EMS Non-Surgical Lift Face, and EMSculpting product lines offered by BeRejuved Inc.
BTL Industries voluntarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. Because BeRejuved had not yet served an answer or a summary judgment motion, BTL was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars BTL from re-asserting the same claims against BeRejuved, and is consistent with a settlement in which BTL received commercial consideration in exchange for closing the case.
The case was resolved in 97 days, from filing on 21 August 2025 to closure on 26 November 2025. This is notably faster than the median timeline for multi-patent infringement actions in the Southern District of New York, suggesting early settlement pressure — likely stemming from BeRejuved’s limited resources or capacity to contest a four-patent action filed by a well-resourced medical device company.
No. Because the case settled before BeRejuved filed any answer or invalidity counterclaims, none of BTL’s four patents — US10478634B2, US11878167B2, US11679255B2, or US9636519B2 — were subjected to judicial or PTAB scrutiny. Their validity and enforceability remain fully intact. This pre-answer settlement outcome is strategically advantageous for BTL, preserving its patent portfolio for enforcement against other parties in the EMS aesthetic device market.
The provision that each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees means no fee-shifting was awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or any other mechanism. This is a standard term in early-stage patent settlements and does not indicate which party negotiated from a position of strength. It is consistent with a resolution reached before significant litigation costs had accrued on either side, though the public record is silent on any substantive commercial terms exchanged.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.