BTL Industries, Inc. v. Munera Esthetics, Inc.
Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 16 May 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: injunction granted.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10478634B2US10695575B1US10596386B2US9636519B2
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00269
- 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
- 13 Jan 2023 – 16 May 2023
- Duration
- 123 days
- Basis of termination
- Injunction Granted
- Products & marks
- Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field · Magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments
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
Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field
Combined 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
- 30 Jun 2020
- Est. expiry
- 1 Jul 2035
- Validity challenges
- 4 on recordPGR2021-00021 · filed by Allergan, Inc.PGR2021-00020 · filed by Allergan, Inc.IPR2021-01276 · filed by LUMENIS BE LTD.IPR2021-01283 · Other · filed by LUMENIS BE LTD.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SCHWARZ, TOMÁS · PROUZA, ONDRA
- Classification
- A61N2/00A61N2/02
- Prosecution counsel
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
- Examiner
- GILBERT, SAMUEL G
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
BTL Industries, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Chandrika Vira · John C. Rozendaal · Monica Riva Talley · Randy R. Haj · Sean A. O’Brien
- Firm
- Payne & Fears LLP, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
Munera Esthetics, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Juliana Coimbra Ferraz · Reid E. Dammann · Violaine C. Brunet
- Firm
- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Chandrika Vira | BTL Industries, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| John C. Rozendaal | BTL Industries, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Monica Riva Talley | BTL Industries, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Randy R. Haj | BTL Industries, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Sean A. O’Brien | BTL Industries, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Juliana Coimbra Ferraz | Munera Esthetics, Inc. | Defendant |
| Reid E. Dammann | Munera Esthetics, Inc. | Defendant |
| Violaine C. Brunet | Munera Esthetics, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Therefore, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED, upon consent of the Parties hereto, in favor of BTL Industries, Inc. as follows: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (a) Munera, including any current officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, representatives, successors in interest, and all other persons, firms, or companies in active concert or participation with Munera is permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly: (i) using the BTL Trademarks or any reproductions, copies, colorable imitations, and confusingly similar versions thereof, including but not limited to SCULPTME™ and SCULPTME GOLD™, in any manner in connection with the promotion, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any device that is not a genuine BTL device, or any service that is not a BTL service offered by a genuine new BTL device, or a pre-owned BTL-recertified device; (ii) committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Munera’s devices are sold under the authorization, control or supervision of BTL, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with BTL; (b) Munera, including any current officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, representatives, successors in interest, and all other persons, firms, or companies in active concert or participation with Munera, is permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly: i. Making, importing, using, offering to sell, or selling—without BTL’s authorization—the SCULPT ME™ device, the SCULPT ME GOLD™ device, the MUSCLE MAX™ device, or any similar magnetic body sculpting device;ii. Making, using, offering to sell, or selling—without BTL’s authorization—any service implementing or utilizing a SCULPT ME™ device, the SCULPT ME GOLD™ device, the MUSCLE MAX™ device, or any similar magnetic body sculpting device; iii. Encouraging, promoting, recommending, or instructing—without BTL’s authorization—any third party to make, use, offer to sell, or sell any SCULPT ME™ device, the SCULPT ME GOLD™ device, the MUSCLE MAX™ device, or any magnetic body sculpting device; 2. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Munera shall pay BTL the total damages agreed upon by the Parties, which amount is subject to a confidentiality clause. 3. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors, assigns, and acquiring companies. 4. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction. 5. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the permanent injunction shall remain in full force and effect unless and until modified by order of this court. 6. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that all claims and demands in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, disbursements or attorneys’ fees to any party. This is a final order and judgment.”
Case 2:23-cv-00269 · C.D. Cal. · closed 16 May 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-00269?
2:23-cv-00269 is a patent infringement action brought by BTL Industries, Inc. against Munera Esthetics, Inc., filed on 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 16 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-00269?
US10478634B2 (“Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field”), assigned to BTL MEDICAL SOLUTIONS A.S., currently active; US10695575B1 (“Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field”), assigned to BTL MEDICAL SOLUTIONS A.S., currently active; US10596386B2 (“Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field”), assigned to WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC|BTL MEDICAL SOLUTIONS A.S.; US9636519B2 (“Magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments”), assigned to BTL MEDICAL SOLUTIONS A.S.. The record also lists Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field and Magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments.
How was case 2:23-cv-00269 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is injunction granted. The termination text reads: “Therefore, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED, upon consent of the Parties hereto, in favor of BTL Industries, Inc. as follows: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (a) Munera, including any current officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, representatives, successors in interest, and all other persons, firms, or companies in active concert or participation with Munera is permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly: (i) using the BTL Trademarks or any reproductions, copies, colorable imitations, and confusingly similar versions thereof, including bu
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:23-cv-00269 take?
123 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2023 to closure on 16 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00269?
Chandrika Vira, John C. Rozendaal, Monica Riva Talley, Randy R. Haj and Sean A. O’Brien are recorded as counsel for plaintiff BTL Industries. Juliana Coimbra Ferraz, Reid E. Dammann and Violaine C. Brunet appear for defendant Munera Esthetics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00269 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.