BTL Industries Inc v. Doll Haus Aesthetics et al.
Infringement action filed 16 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 12 Dec 2023, with US10478634B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10478634B2
- Application no.
- US16/034793
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-08707
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- C.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 16 Oct 2023 – 12 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 57 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- EMSLIM NEO
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field
Methods for treating a patient using time varying magnetic field are described. The treatment methods combine various approaches for aesthetic treatment. The methods are focused on enhancing a visual appearance of the patient.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 19 Nov 2019
- Earliest priority
- 30 Dec 2016
- Est. expiry
- 1 Jul 2035
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2021-00312 · filed by Allergan, Inc.IPR2021-01273 · filed by LUMENIS BE LTD.IPR2021-01280 · filed by LUMENIS BE LTD.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SCHWARZ, TOMÁS · PROUZA, ONDRA
- Classification
- A61N2/04A61N2/02A61B18/20A61N2/00A61N7/00A61B18/00H01F7/06A61N5/067A61B17/00A61N5/06
- Prosecution counsel
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
- Examiner
- GILBERT, SAMUEL G
Parties of record
BTL Industries Inc
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Randy R. Haj · Seth R. Ogden
- Firm
- Patterson Intellectual Property Law PC, Payne & Fears LLP
Doll Haus Aesthetics
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- Honoree Treadwell
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Randy R. Haj | BTL Industries Inc | Plaintiff |
| Seth R. Ogden | BTL Industries Inc | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The dismissal is made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a) or (c).”
Case 2:23-cv-08707 · C.D. Cal. · closed 12 December 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:23-cv-08707?
2:23-cv-08707 is a patent infringement action brought by BTL Industries Inc against Doll Haus Aesthetics, filed on 16 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 12 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-08707?
US10478634B2 (“Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field”), assigned to BTL MEDICAL SOLUTIONS A.S., currently active. The record also lists EMSLIM NEO.
How was case 2:23-cv-08707 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “The dismissal is made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a) or (c).”
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 2:23-cv-08707 take?
57 calendar days, from filing on 16 Oct 2023 to closure on 12 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-08707?
Randy R. Haj and Seth R. Ogden are recorded as counsel for plaintiff BTL Industries.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-08707 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.