BTL Industries v. Dr Juventas: Consent Judgment & Permanent Injunction in 366 Days
BTL Industries, Inc. — holder of US10478634B2 covering aesthetic magnetic body sculpting methods — brought suit against Dr Juventas and Nastran Hashemi for alleged infringement and unauthorized use of BTL trademarks including ‘EMSlim’ and ‘EMSlim Neo.’ The case closed exactly one year after filing with a consent judgment, permanent injunction, and confidential damages award in BTL’s favour.
Consent judgment shuts down knockoff magnetic sculpting device operation
BTL Industries, Inc. filed suit on 6 June 2023 in the Central District of California against aesthetic clinic operator Dr Juventas and individual Nastran Hashemi. The complaint centred on US10478634B2, which protects an aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field — the core technology underlying BTL’s commercial body-sculpting platform. Defendants allegedly used BTL trademarks including ‘EMSlim,’ ‘EMSlim Neo,’ and ‘EMSHIF’ to market and sell unauthorised devices and services not sourced from BTL.
The case terminated on 6 June 2024 — exactly 366 days after filing — through a consent judgment and permanent injunction entered by stipulation of both parties. The court permanently enjoined Defendants from using BTL trademarks, marketing knockoff magnetic sculpting devices, performing services with unauthorised devices, or encouraging third parties to do so. Defendants also agreed to pay damages in an amount subject to a confidentiality clause, meaning the financial terms are not publicly disclosed.
Resolution at the one-year mark, without a fee award to either side, suggests the parties negotiated a settlement framework before or during trial preparation that preserved confidentiality on damages. The absence of a cost award is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested merits decision. What remains unknown from the public record is the quantum of damages paid and whether the Defendants’ device supply chain was identified or disrupted beyond the named parties.
Filing to Case Terminated in 366 days
Resolved in exactly 12 months — faster than median C.D. Cal. IP disposition
Consent judgment and permanent injunction: what the outcome means for both parties
Consent judgment combines agreed liability with court-enforceable relief
A consent judgment is a hybrid instrument: Defendants effectively concede the core claims, and the court enters an order carrying the full force of a litigation outcome. Unlike a pure settlement, this judgment is directly enforceable by contempt proceedings. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the permanent injunction, giving BTL a swift enforcement path if violations recur.
Court-enforceable by consentBTL secures permanent injunction and confidential damages
BTL obtained the broadest available equitable remedy — a permanent injunction covering not just named defendants but all persons in active concert with them. The injunction bars use of the ‘EMSlim,’ ‘EMSlim Neo,’ and ‘EMSHIF’ marks and prohibits making, importing, using, or selling any similar magnetic body sculpting device without BTL authorisation. Confidential damages were also awarded, preserving the deterrent signal without public disclosure of the settlement quantum.
Permanent injunction grantedDefendants permanently barred from the magnetic sculpting device market
Dr Juventas and Nastran Hashemi are permanently restrained from operating in the aesthetic magnetic sculpting space using BTL-adjacent branding or technology. The injunction extends to officers, agents, employees, and independent contractors, making it difficult to reconstitute the business under another entity. Dismissal was without prejudice on the claims, meaning BTL retains the theoretical right to refile if new violations emerge beyond the injunction’s scope.
Injunction binds all associatesUS10478634B2 enforcement signals active brand and patent policing by BTL
This outcome suggests BTL is actively monitoring and enforcing both its patent portfolio and trademark rights against clinics operating grey-market or counterfeit electromagnetic body sculpting equipment. For competitors and distributors in the medical aesthetics space, the consent judgment — with its reach to downstream service providers — raises the compliance risk of sourcing non-BTL-certified devices. The court’s retained jurisdiction further strengthens the deterrent effect for future infringers.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BTL Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical aesthetics device company — holder of US10478634B2 for magnetic body sculptingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dr Juventas | Individual | Aesthetic clinic operator and individual alleged to have sold unauthorised BTL-branded magnetic devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Nastran Hashemi | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randy R. Haj | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth R. Ogden | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Patterson Intellectual Property Law PC | Law Firm | Representing BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Payne & Fears LLP | Law Firm | Representing BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tracy Green | Attorney | Counsel for Dr JuventasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Green & Associates | Law Firm | Representing Dr JuventasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment is entered ‘upon consent of the Parties,’ which means no merits determination was made by the court — the parties reached agreed terms that were then given judicial force. The permanent injunction’s scope is notably broad, extending to all persons in active concert with Defendants and covering not only named trademarks but any ‘similar magnetic body sculpting device.’ The dismissal without prejudice on underlying claims is standard in consent judgment structures and preserves BTL’s ability to pursue related or future infringement separately.
US10478634B2 — Aesthetic magnetic body sculpting method
US10478634B2, filed under application number US16/034793, protects an aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field — the foundational technology enabling non-invasive electromagnetic muscle stimulation for body sculpting. The patent covers the clinical methodology for applying high-intensity focused electromagnetic energy to induce supramaximal muscle contractions, a technique commercialised under BTL’s branded device lines. Its grant positions BTL as a core IP holder in the rapidly expanding non-invasive body contouring segment.
For the medical aesthetics sector, US10478634B2 represents a strategically significant asset: the method claims, rather than device-specific hardware claims, create broad coverage that extends to any operator implementing the protected treatment protocol — not merely device manufacturers. This means clinics purchasing third-party electromagnetic sculpting equipment may face direct infringement exposure if the underlying method falls within claim scope. Competitors developing adjacent HIFEM or electromagnetic muscle stimulation platforms should treat this patent as a primary freedom-to-operate reference.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10478634B2?
Any company or clinic developing, distributing, or operating electromagnetic muscle stimulation or non-invasive body sculpting devices in the US market should treat US10478634B2 as a priority FTO reference. BTL’s enforcement action against a downstream clinic operator — not a device manufacturer — confirms that method claims can reach end-users directly. If your product or service involves applying magnetic fields for aesthetic muscle stimulation, the risk profile extends beyond hardware design to the treatment protocols your practitioners perform.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US10478634B2 and identify prior art, continuation applications, or design-around opportunities in the HIFEM and electromagnetic aesthetics landscape. Eureka’s prosecution history analysis also surfaces any claim amendments that may narrow or expand enforceability — critical context given BTL’s active litigation posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478634B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: electromagnetic aesthetics device enforcement in US district courts
Explore related infringement actions involving electromagnetic body sculpting, HIFEM technology, and medical aesthetics device patents litigated in US federal district courts.
What this case signals for the medical aesthetics IP landscape
BTL’s swift enforcement win reinforces the legal exposure facing clinics that operate outside authorised device distribution channels.
Consent judgments with retained jurisdiction create durable enforcement leverage
By securing court-retained jurisdiction, BTL can move directly for contempt if the injunction is violated — bypassing the need to file a new action. Patent holders in the medical device and aesthetics sector should consider structuring settlements to include this provision where possible.
Trademark and patent bundling strengthens the enforcement narrative
BTL’s simultaneous assertion of trademark rights (EMSlim, EMSlim Neo, EMSHIF) alongside US10478634B2 created overlapping grounds for relief. This dual-track strategy — common in branded medical technology — increases the likelihood of early resolution on favourable terms, as defendants face broader liability exposure.
BTL v Dr — key questions answered
The case resolved on 6 June 2024 via a consent judgment and permanent injunction in favour of BTL Industries, Inc. Defendants were permanently enjoined from using BTL trademarks, marketing knockoff magnetic sculpting devices, and performing related services. Defendants also agreed to pay confidential damages. All claims were dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party.
The patent asserted is US10478634B2, filed under application US16/034793. It covers an aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field — the foundational method patent underlying BTL’s electromagnetic muscle stimulation body sculpting technology, commercially associated with products in the EMSculpt and related product lines.
The permanent injunction bars Defendants — and all persons in active concert with them — from using BTL trademarks (including EMSlim, EMSlim Neo, EMSHIF), marketing or selling unauthorised magnetic body sculpting devices, performing services using such devices, and encouraging third parties to do so. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce these terms.
No. The consent judgment states that Defendants shall pay BTL ‘the total damages agreed upon by the Parties,’ but specifies that the amount is subject to a confidentiality clause. The financial terms are therefore not part of the public court record.
In this context, dismissal without prejudice on the underlying claims means BTL theoretically retains the right to refile claims if new infringement arises outside the injunction’s scope. However, the consent judgment and permanent injunction themselves remain binding and enforceable. This structure is standard in consent judgments where the equitable relief — not a merits ruling — is the primary enforcement mechanism.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.