BTL Industries v. LA Curves: $375K Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction for EMSCULPT Infringement
BTL Industries, maker of the EMSCULPT body-contouring platform, secured a default judgment of $375,000 plus a permanent injunction against LA Curves Body Sculpting and its owner Anais Larios in the Central District of California. The court found willful infringement of US Patent No. 9,636,519 covering HIFEM magnetic stimulation technology, alongside five registered trademarks. The case resolved in 295 days without the defendants ever appearing.
Default judgment enforces EMSCULPT IP against rogue body-sculpting clinic
BTL Industries, Inc. filed suit on 8 May 2023 in the Central District of California against LA Curves Body Sculpting, LLC and its individual owner Anais Larios, alleging infringement of US Patent No. 9,636,519, which covers magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments — the core technology behind the EMSCULPT platform. BTL also asserted five registered trademarks including EM, EMSCULPT, and HIFEM marks. Defendants were alleged to have used, sold, and promoted infringing devices and services while trading on BTL’s protected brand terms.
Because defendants failed to appear or defend, BTL moved for entry of default judgment and a permanent injunction. On 27 February 2024, the court granted that motion in full, entering judgment on all four causes of action: patent infringement, federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and common law trademark infringement. The court awarded $375,000 in damages plus $1,144.83 in costs, both imposed jointly and severally on LA Curves and Larios personally.
At 295 days from filing to judgment, the timeline reflects the mechanics of default proceedings rather than contested litigation — once defendants failed to respond, BTL’s path to judgment was largely procedural. The willfulness finding, supported by the court under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), suggests BTL presented evidence of intentional misappropriation rather than innocent use. What the public record does not reveal is whether any settlement discussions occurred before default was entered, or whether BTL has pursued or intends to pursue enforcement of the monetary award.
Filing to settlement in 295 days
295 days — resolved without defendant appearance, faster than most contested patent cases
Default judgment: $375,000 damages, permanent injunction, willfulness found
Default judgment — what it means when defendants never appear
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to a complaint within the required time. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and determines appropriate relief. Here, both LA Curves and Anais Larios individually failed to appear, enabling BTL to obtain judgment on all four counts without a contested trial. Default judgments in IP cases are not uncommon against smaller infringers who may lack resources or legal counsel.
Uncontested — defendants did not appear$375,000 award on willfulness — how courts reach this figure
The $375,000 damages award covers all causes of action jointly. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, willful patent infringement enables up to treble damages; under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), willful trademark counterfeiting permits statutory damages up to $2,000,000 per mark. The court’s willfulness finding — absent any defendant rebuttal — suggests the award reflects a considered assessment of BTL’s documented losses or a statutory floor, though the precise methodology is not detailed in the public order.
Willful infringement — joint and several liabilityPermanent injunction bars future use of EMSCULPT marks and patent
The permanent injunction prohibits both defendants — and anyone acting in concert with them — from using any BTL trademark (including EMSCULPT, HIFEM, EMS SCULPT, EMS SCULPTING, EMS SLIMPRO), passing off services as BTL-authorised, or making, selling, or importing devices infringing US9636519. This broad scope extends to successor entities and associates, making it significantly harder for either defendant to continue infringing operations under a rebranded entity.
Permanent — covers successors and associatesOwner Anais Larios held personally liable alongside the LLC
Joint and several liability was imposed on both the corporate entity LA Curves Body Sculpting, LLC and its individual owner Anais Larios. In IP enforcement actions, courts can pierce through the corporate structure where an individual personally directed, participated in, or profited from the infringing conduct. This means BTL can pursue collection of the $375,000 judgment and costs from Larios personally if the LLC lacks sufficient assets — a significant escalation beyond purely corporate liability.
Individual owner personally liableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BTL Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical aesthetics device company — holder of US9636519B2 and EMSCULPT trademark portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LA Curves Body Sculpting, LLC | Company | LA-based body sculpting clinic and its individual owner/operator, Anais LariosSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Laatsch Fink | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randy R. Haj | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott O. Luskin | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | California Central District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The default judgment order is unusually comprehensive: it explicitly finds willfulness under both patent and trademark statutes, imposes joint and several liability on the corporate entity and its individual owner, and issues a permanent injunction extending to anyone acting in concert with the defendants. Because no defendant appeared, none of the underlying legal conclusions were contested — US9636519’s validity, the scope of its claims, and the likelihood-of-confusion analysis for the trademarks all stand unexamined by adversarial argument. The order therefore establishes strong precedent for BTL’s enforcement posture but leaves core patent claim boundaries legally untested.
US9636519B2 — HIFEM Magnetic Stimulation Methods and Devices
US Patent No. 9,636,519 (application no. US14/789658) protects magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments — the technical foundation of BTL’s EMSCULPT system. EMSCULPT delivers high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) energy to induce supramaximal muscle contractions, a non-invasive modality used for body contouring and muscle conditioning. The patent covers both the device architecture and the treatment methodology, providing broad protection over the core HIFEM approach in the US market.
For the medical aesthetics sector, US9636519 represents a significant blocking position. As HIFEM-based body-contouring devices proliferate — from established medtech companies to low-cost imported units marketed to clinics — any product that uses focused electromagnetic stimulation for therapeutic muscle contraction must be assessed against this patent’s claims. BTL’s willingness to pursue default judgments against small infringers signals active enforcement intent, and the patent’s unchallenged status in this case means its claim scope has not been narrowed by litigation.
Should you run an FTO against US9636519 before launching a HIFEM device?
Any company developing, importing, or distributing electromagnetic muscle stimulation devices for body contouring or therapeutic applications in the United States should treat US9636519 as a priority FTO target. The patent covers methods and devices broadly, meaning both the hardware and the treatment protocol may fall within claim scope. This case confirms BTL actively monitors and enforces this patent against commercial users — including individual clinic operators, not just device manufacturers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your device’s technical claims against US9636519’s independent and dependent claims, identify prior art that may support validity challenges, and flag continuation applications that could extend BTL’s coverage. Setting up claim monitoring on US9636519 and BTL’s related portfolio ensures your team receives early warning if new continuation claims issue that could affect your product’s freedom to operate as the technology evolves.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9636519B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar HIFEM patent and medical aesthetics trademark cases in US courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the medical aesthetics IP landscape
BTL’s swift default judgment is one data point in a broader enforcement pattern targeting unauthorised use of premium body-contouring brand assets.
Brand-and-patent bundling amplifies enforcement leverage
BTL combined patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 284 with multiple trademark counts, enabling both statutory damages and injunctive relief in a single action. For IP holders in medical aesthetics, this multi-vector approach maximises the chance of a favourable ruling even when one theory faces challenges — and makes default judgments more potent.
Permanent injunctions extend the enforcement value well beyond monetary awards
The $375,000 judgment may be difficult to collect from a small clinic, but the permanent injunction binding successors and associates creates lasting deterrence. Any future venture involving the same individuals using EMSCULPT or HIFEM branding would constitute contempt of court — a criminal enforcement mechanism BTL can invoke without refiling.
BTL v LA — key questions answered
BTL Industries obtained a default judgment against LA Curves Body Sculpting LLC and Anais Larios on 27 February 2024. The court awarded $375,000 in damages and $1,144.83 in costs, jointly and severally, and issued a permanent injunction covering both patent and trademark infringement. Willful infringement was found under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b).
US9636519B2 is a BTL Industries patent covering magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments. It protects the high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technology underlying the EMSCULPT body-contouring platform, encompassing both the device architecture and treatment methodology. The patent was found infringed by LA Curves’ use, sale, and promotion of unauthorised HIFEM-type devices.
The court imposed joint and several liability on both LA Curves Body Sculpting LLC and its individual owner Anais Larios. In IP enforcement actions, individual owners can be held personally liable where they personally directed or participated in the infringing conduct. This means BTL can pursue the $375,000 judgment from Larios personally if the LLC lacks sufficient assets to satisfy the award.
BTL asserted five registered trademarks — US Reg. Nos. 5,572,801; 6,069,279; 6,206,098; 5,915,636; and 5,688,619 — covering the EM, EMSCULPT, and HIFEM marks. The court found all marks valid and protectable, and held that defendants’ use of EMSCULPT, EMS SCULPT, EMS SCULPTING, EMS SLIMPRO, and HIFEM was likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, origin, and affiliation with BTL.
The permanent injunction prohibits LA Curves, Anais Larios, and anyone acting in concert with them from using BTL’s trademarks or any colourable imitation, passing off services as BTL-authorised, and making, selling, offering for sale, or importing devices infringing US9636519. The broad scope binding associates and successors makes it difficult for either defendant to continue infringing operations under a new entity or brand.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.