BTL Industries v. New And Used Lasers: Magnetic Aesthetics Patent Case Settles in 264 Days
BTL Industries, Inc. asserted US10478634B2 — covering aesthetic treatment of biological structures via magnetic fields — against New And Used Lasers, LLC and two individual defendants in New Jersey federal court. The parties reached a settlement within 264 days, triggering an administrative termination order with a 60-day window to file formal dismissal papers.
Swift settlement in magnetic aesthetic device IP dispute, D.N.J.
BTL Industries, Inc., a medical aesthetics company and holder of US10478634B2, filed suit on 19 May 2023 in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey against New And Used Lasers, LLC, John Haberlen, and Michael Knight. The asserted patent covers an aesthetic method of treating biological structures using magnetic fields — technology closely associated with high-intensity focused electromagnetic body-contouring and muscle-stimulation devices. The inclusion of individual defendants alongside the LLC suggests BTL targeted both the corporate entity and the principals it believed were personally responsible for the allegedly infringing activity.
The parties reported a settlement to the court, and on 7 February 2024 Judge issued an administrative termination order. Under that order, the parties have 60 days to file formal dismissal papers; if they fail to do so and cannot consummate the settlement, they may request the action be reopened. Absent any filing, the court will dismiss with prejudice and without costs — a standard New Jersey District Court settlement-termination mechanism that preserves judicial economy while giving parties time to document final terms.
The 264-day timeline from filing to administrative termination is relatively brisk for a patent infringement case in D.N.J., suggesting the parties may have reached a licensing or cease-and-desist arrangement without extensive claim construction or discovery battles. Settlement terms are confidential; whether the defendants obtained a licence, agreed to stop selling the accused devices, or paid royalties is not discernible from the public record. The short duration and early resolution are consistent with a smaller defendant lacking resources for prolonged litigation against a well-resourced patent holder.
Filing to settlement in 264 days
264-day resolution — faster than most patent infringement cases in D.N.J.
Administrative termination pending formal dismissal — what this means
Administrative termination is not a dismissal — yet
The 7 February 2024 order explicitly states it does not constitute a dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case is suspended, not closed. Within 60 days, the parties must either file stipulated dismissal papers or ask the court to reopen the action if the settlement falls apart. This two-stage mechanism is standard in D.N.J. and gives parties time to reduce a settlement to a binding written agreement before the case is formally terminated.
Not yet a final dismissalDefault dismissal would be with prejudice — and without costs
If the parties file nothing within the 60-day window, the court will dismiss with prejudice and without costs automatically. A with-prejudice dismissal would bar BTL from refiling the same infringement claims against these defendants on US10478634B2. However, this default outcome only triggers if the parties are silent; in practice, most settled cases file a consent order of dismissal well within the window. The ‘without costs’ term removes any fee-shifting risk for either side.
With prejudice if no filingNamed individuals signal personal liability theory
Naming John Haberlen and Michael Knight alongside New And Used Lasers, LLC is consistent with a strategy of piercing the corporate veil or alleging direct personal participation in infringement — common when a plaintiff suspects a small LLC may be judgment-proof. Any settlement reached would likely bind all three defendants, preventing them from simply reforming under a new entity and resuming the same conduct.
Personal liability exposureSettlement terms are not public — scope and royalties unknown
The administrative termination order reveals only that the parties reported a settlement; financial terms, licensing scope, and any agreed restrictions on the defendants’ business are not disclosed in the public record. It is unknown whether the defendants obtained a licence to continue selling or servicing devices covered by US10478634B2, or agreed to cease those activities entirely. Competitors and market participants should treat the outcome as a signal of active enforcement, not a green light.
Terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BTL Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical aesthetics device company — holder of US10478634B2 (magnetic field treatment method)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | New And Used Lasers, LLC | Company | Secondary market laser and aesthetic device dealer; two individual principals also named as defendantsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric I. Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Murtha | Attorney | Counsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick Joseph Cerillo. | Attorney | Counsel for New And Used Lasers, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | New Jersey District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The administrative termination order is deliberately non-dispositive: the court confirms this order is not a dismissal under the Federal Rules, preserving the case’s legal existence pending formal closure. The 60-day filing window and the automatic with-prejudice backstop are procedural devices designed to ensure the settlement is actually consummated. For both sides, the order creates certainty — BTL retains leverage if the defendants default on settlement terms, while defendants benefit from the ‘without costs’ clause that removes fee-shifting exposure.
US10478634B2 — Aesthetic Magnetic Field Biological Structure Treatment
US10478634B2 protects an aesthetic method for treating biological structures — including muscle and fat tissue — using focused magnetic fields. The patent, filed under application number US16/034793, falls within the rapidly growing HIFEM (High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic) technology domain. This category of devices uses rapidly alternating magnetic fields to induce supramaximal muscle contractions, used clinically for body contouring and muscle conditioning. BTL is widely recognised as a pioneer in this space, having commercialised devices under well-known brand names in this category.
For competitors, distributors, and device resellers, US10478634B2 represents a live enforcement risk in the magnetic aesthetic treatment market. BTL’s decision to assert this patent against a secondary-market dealer — rather than only original manufacturers — suggests a broad enforcement posture that extends throughout the supply and distribution chain. Companies developing or selling electromagnetic muscle-stimulation or body-contouring devices should treat this patent as a material freedom-to-operate consideration, particularly for products that perform aesthetic treatment of biological structures via magnetic field induction.
Should you run an FTO against US10478634B2?
Any company manufacturing, distributing, reselling, or servicing devices that use magnetic or electromagnetic fields for aesthetic body treatment should treat US10478634B2 as a priority FTO target. This case confirms that BTL actively monitors and enforces this patent, including against small resellers and individual principals — not just large competitors. Device importers, med-spa equipment suppliers, and secondary-market dealers are all within the realistic scope of enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim set of US10478634B2 against your product specifications and flag potential overlap across the patent family. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools also alert you to continuation applications or related filings that could extend BTL’s protection into adjacent methods. Setting up a claim alert on this patent family is a low-cost step with high strategic value for anyone operating in the magnetic aesthetics device market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478634B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in magnetic aesthetics and electromagnetic medical devices
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 willingness to sue resellers and individual principals over magnetic aesthetic patents signals assertive enforcement across the distribution chain.
Resellers of aesthetic devices face direct patent infringement risk
This case demonstrates that patent holders like BTL Industries are willing to pursue not just device manufacturers but secondary-market dealers and their individual principals. Companies that buy, refurbish, or resell magnetic aesthetic devices — including HIFEM and similar systems — should assess whether their inventory is covered by patents like US10478634B2 before taking on new product lines.
Speed of settlement suggests litigation economics favoured BTL heavily
A 264-day resolution without apparent claim construction or trial activity is consistent with a defendant lacking the resources or defences needed to sustain litigation. BTL’s ability to extract a settlement this quickly reinforces the leverage that a strong, commercially active patent provides against smaller market participants in the aesthetics device resale space.
BTL v New — key questions answered
The case was settled. On 7 February 2024, the New Jersey District Court issued an administrative termination order confirming the parties had reported a settlement. The order gives parties 60 days to file formal dismissal papers; absent any filing, the court will dismiss with prejudice and without costs automatically. Settlement terms are not public.
BTL Industries asserted US10478634B2, which covers an aesthetic method of treating biological structures using magnetic fields. The patent falls within the HIFEM (High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic) technology space and was filed under application number US16/034793.
Naming individual principals alongside a corporate LLC defendant is a litigation strategy designed to impose personal liability and increase settlement pressure. It is commonly used when a plaintiff suspects the corporate entity may be judgment-proof or when there is evidence of direct personal participation in the allegedly infringing conduct. The specific allegations in this case are not fully detailed in the public record.
The settlement terms are confidential and not disclosed in the court record. It is not known whether the defendants obtained a licence to continue operating, agreed to cease sales, or accepted other restrictions. The administrative termination order does not address the scope of any licence or injunctive terms agreed between the parties.
Administrative termination in D.N.J. is a procedural device that suspends — but does not formally close — a case following a reported settlement. It is explicitly not a dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties have 60 days to file dismissal papers. If they do not, the court dismisses with prejudice and without costs automatically. If settlement fails, either party may request the case be reopened.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.