Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
BTL Industries v. PBT Financial: EMSCULPT Patent Default Judgment | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-00865
FiledJul 2024
ClosedApr 2025
Patent Litigation

BTL Industries v. PBT Financial: Default Judgment, $100K Damages & Permanent Injunction

BTL Industries secured a default judgment against PBT Financial LLC d/b/a Photo Biotech for willful infringement of US Patent No. 10,478,634 covering EMSCULPT body-contouring technology, plus Lanham Act violations involving counterfeit EMTONE® and EMSCULPT® marks. The Delaware District Court awarded $100,000 in statutory damages and entered a sweeping permanent injunction — including domain seizure — within 261 days of filing.

Resolution time
261days
261-day resolution — notably swift for a multi-claim IP enforcement action in D. Del.
Patents asserted
1
US10478634B2 — EMSCULPT body-contouring device, HIFEM muscle-stimulation technology
Outcome
Default Judgment
Court granted plaintiff’s motion; defendant failed to appear — willful infringement found.
Cost ruling
$100,000
Statutory damages awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) for counterfeit mark use.
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

EMSCULPT counterfeiting case ends in total plaintiff victory at D. Del.

BTL Industries, Inc., the manufacturer behind the EMSCULPT, EMSCULPT NEO, and EMTONE body-contouring device lines, filed suit in the Delaware District Court on July 24, 2024, against PBT Financial LLC, operating as Photo Biotech. BTL alleged that PBT sold non-genuine body-contouring products — including devices marketed as ‘Freedom Body PFM,’ ‘Freedom Body RF Multi-Application,’ and ‘Freedom+’ — bearing BTL’s federally registered trademarks without authorisation, while also directly and indirectly infringing US Patent No. 10,478,634, which covers HIFEM-based muscle stimulation technology central to the EMSCULPT product family.

The case concluded on April 11, 2025, when Judge Colm F. Connolly granted BTL’s Motion for Default Judgment, Statutory Damages, and Permanent Injunction in full. PBT Financial never appeared to defend, resulting in a default posture. The court found PBT’s infringement to be knowing, willful, and intentional, awarded $100,000 in statutory damages for counterfeit mark use under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), entered a permanent injunction barring all further patent and trademark infringement, and ordered destruction of infringing inventory. Notably, the order also directed GoDaddy and Cloudflare to seize and take down PBT’s websites immediately.

At 261 days from filing to final judgment, the resolution is consistent with the accelerated timelines that default proceedings typically produce — though the breadth of the injunctive relief, extending to third-party domain registrar and CDN enforcement, suggests BTL’s counsel anticipated evasion risk. The public record does not disclose whether any damages were ultimately collectible from PBT Financial, nor whether PBT had assets sufficient to satisfy the award. The absence of any defendant legal representation leaves open questions about the commercial scale of the infringing operation.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-00865
CourtDelaware
JudgeColm F. Connolly
FiledJuly 24, 2024
ClosedApril 11, 2025
Duration261 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Delaware District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 261 days

261-day resolution — notably swift for a multi-claim IP enforcement action in D. Del.

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 24 2024, DEC — 261 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in BTL Industries, Inc. v PBT Financial LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Delaware District Court. JUL 24 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings APR 11 2025 Default Judgment 261 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment granted: what the order means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: liability found without a contested trial

When a defendant fails to appear or respond to a complaint, the court may enter a default judgment on liability. Here, PBT Financial never engaged in the proceedings, so the court accepted BTL’s well-pleaded allegations as true. This is not a merits adjudication after adversarial argument — it reflects a defendant’s procedural forfeiture. The willfulness finding, while consequential, was made on undisputed evidence presented solely by BTL.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) default
Patent holder outcome

BTL secures permanent injunction and willfulness finding on US10478634B2

BTL obtains the full range of available relief: a $100,000 statutory damages award, a permanent injunction blocking all infringing use of its HIFEM patent and trademarks, mandatory product destruction, and third-party enforcement against PBT’s digital infrastructure. The willfulness finding strengthens BTL’s posture in any follow-on enforcement against other counterfeiters. However, collectability of the damages award from an LLC that defaulted is uncertain from the public record.

Permanent injunction granted
Infringer outcome

PBT barred from US market; websites seized; inventory ordered destroyed

PBT Financial LLC faces total exclusion from the US body-contouring device market. The injunction covers not only direct sales but also indirect facilitation through affiliates, agents, and online marketplaces. Domain registrar GoDaddy and CDN provider Cloudflare were ordered to act immediately, removing PBT’s web presence. The order binds PBT’s officers, employees, and those acting in concert — effectively foreclosing any operational restructuring under a new entity without court contempt risk.

Full market exclusion
Commercial implications

HIFEM patent enforcement signals low tolerance for aesthetic device counterfeiting

This judgment signals that BTL is actively monitoring and enforcing its EMSCULPT IP portfolio against counterfeit distribution channels. The inclusion of third-party platform and domain enforcement — not always sought in default cases — suggests a systematic enforcement strategy. Distributors, resellers, and online marketplace operators handling HIFEM-based body-contouring devices should assess whether their supply chain includes non-genuine BTL products, as downstream liability risk is explicitly addressed in the injunction terms.

Active portfolio enforcement
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-00865 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffBTL Industries, Inc.CompanyMedical aesthetics device manufacturer — holder of US10478634B2 (EMSCULPT/HIFEM technology)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantPBT Financial LLCCompanyPBT Financial LLC d/b/a Photo Biotech — seller of allegedly counterfeit body-contouring devicesSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRichard Charles WeinblattAttorneyCounsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSeth R. OgdenAttorneyCounsel for BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmStamoulis & Weinblatt LLCLaw FirmRepresenting BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Colm F. ConnollyJudgeDelaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“At Wilmington this / / ‘f’ day of _ 4..:….f-",__ •’_/ ___ , 2025, having considered Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, Statutory Damages, and Permanent Injunction (the "Motion") and supporting evidence, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, as follows: I. Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant PBT FINANCIAL LLC d/b/a PHOTO BIOTECH ("PBT") is hereby GRANTED; 2. The Court finds that BTL Industries, Inc. ("BTL") is entitled to an award of $ I 00,000 in statutory damages based on PBT’s use of a counterfeit mark in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § l l l 7(c); 3. Default Judgment is entered in favor of BTL and against PBT finding that PBT directly and indirectly infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 (the "Asserted Patent"), and that such infringement was willful; Case 1:24-cv-00865-CFC Document 26 Filed 04/11/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 271 4. PBT and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons acting in concert with PBT are pennanently enjoined from infringing the Asserted Patent including by using, making, selling, offering to sell, or importing devices that infringe the Asserted Patent. 5. Defendant PBT’s conduct complained ofin this action supports this Court’s finding that Defendant’s conduct was knowing, willful, and intentional. 6. Default Judgment is entered in favor of BTL and against PBT finding that PBT’s use of the BTL Trademarks I and confusingly similar variations thereof, including EMTONE®, EMSCULPT®, EMSCULPT NEO®, EM®, and HIFEM®, has infringed the BTL Trademarks and is a violation of the Lanham Act, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Delaware Common Law. 7. Default Judgment is entered in favor ofBTL and against 8. Defendant PBT is hereby permanently enjoined from: a. Using in any manner the BTL Trademarks or any marks, names, trade dress, designs, symbols, or devices that are identical, substantially indistinguishable from, or confusingly similar to any of the BTL Trademarks, on or in connection with body-contouring devices; b. Passing off, falsely advertising, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any products as products produced by BTL, which are not in fact BTL’s products, or which are materially different from BTL’ s products authorized to be sold in the United States, or otherwise not produced under the control and 1 I.e., the trademarks associated with the EMSCULPT, EMSCULPT NEO, and EMTONE devices, including the federally registered EMTONE®, EMSCULPT®, EMSCULPT NEO®, EM®, and HIFEM® trademarks (hereafter, the "BTL Trademarks"). 2 Case 1:24-cv-00865-CFC Document 26 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 272 supervision of BTL and/or approved by BTL for advertising and sale under the BTL Trademarks; c. Committing acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that PBT’ s products are sold under the control or supervision of BTL, or that they are sponsored or approved by, connected with, guaranteed by, or produced under the control and supervision of BTL when they are not; d. Shipping, delivering, transferring, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products, or inventory which consists of non-genuine or materially different products bearing the BTL Trademarks or any mark confusingly similar thereto; e. Otherwise unfairly competing with BTL in any manner; and f. Aiding, assisting, or abetting any other person or business entity engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs 4(a)-(e) above. 9. Defendant PBT is hereby ordered to: a. Withdraw and retract from the marketplace in the United States all products, product packing and displays, advertisements, commercials, and other materials in connection with body-contouring devices, regardless of where those materials are situated in the distribution chain (including, without limitation, affiliates, related companies, agents, retailers), that consist of, bear, or display the BTL Trademarks, and/or any marks, names, trade dress, and designs that are confusingly similar to or likely to dilute or tarnish the BTL Trademarks (including, without limitation, Defendant’s non-genuine and materially different body-contouring products bearing any of the BTL Trademarks); 3 Case 1:24-cv-00865-CFC Document 26 Filed 04/11/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 273 b. Destroy all products and materials that consist of, bear, or display the BTL Trademarks on body-contouring devices or any other unauthorized uses of the BTL Trademarks, or any marks, names, trade dress, and designs that are confusingly similar to or likely to dilute or tarnish such marks, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 111 8 and other applicable laws; c. Withdraw, retract, and/or destroy as applicable all advertisements (including within online marketplaces such as Defendant’s websites https://photobiotech.com and https://freedom-plus.com/), commercials, and other materials containing: ( 1) any of the false or misleading statements complained of herein; and (2) any fa lse, misleading, or deceptive statements regarding BTL, BTL’s products, or Defendant’s products bearing any of the BTL Trademarks. 10. GoDaddy.com, LLC, shall immediately place the <photobiotech.com> domain name registration on hold and lock, and shall immediately remove all existing Domain Name Service (DNS) entries and corresponding addresses, and enter the Registrar’s own default Domain Name Service and address entries in their place to prevent any further irreparable injury to Plaintiff. 11. Cloudflare London, LLC, shall immediately take down the <photobiotech.com> website and prevent it from being displayed on the Internet to prevent any further irreparable inju1y to the Plaintiff; and Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a), execution of this final judgment shall not be stayed.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-00865, Delaware District Court

The default judgment order is comprehensive and multi-layered, covering patent infringement of US10478634B2, Lanham Act trademark infringement, Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations, and Delaware common law claims simultaneously. Crucially, the court’s willfulness finding — made on undisputed evidence in a default context — carries real downstream significance: it establishes a public record of intentional conduct that BTL may invoke in future enforcement actions. The domain seizure directives to GoDaddy and Cloudflare are substantively unusual and reflect the court’s assessment that conventional injunctive relief alone may be insufficient to prevent ongoing harm.

PACER case 1:24-cv-00865 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US10478634B2 — HIFEM body-contouring and muscle stimulation technology

Publication No.US10478634B2
Application No.US16/034793
Patent details
ProductHigh-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) body-contouring and muscle stimulation device
Cited in actionJuly 24, 2024

US Patent No. 10,478,634 (application no. US16/034793) protects technology underlying BTL’s EMSCULPT product line — specifically high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) methods and apparatus used to induce supramaximal muscle contractions for body contouring and muscle toning. The patent was asserted in its B2 granted form, meaning it had already completed examination and any post-issuance corrections. No post-grant review proceedings against this patent are referenced in the public case record, leaving its claims in an unnarrowed state relevant to FTO assessments.

HIFEM technology has emerged as a high-value segment in the non-invasive body-contouring device market, with EMSCULPT and EMSCULPT NEO commanding significant practitioner adoption. BTL’s willingness to pursue default judgment — including costly third-party infrastructure orders — suggests the company views US10478634B2 as a core commercial asset worth active enforcement. Any manufacturer or distributor developing or reselling electromagnetic muscle stimulation devices in the US should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk, particularly given the absence of any successful invalidity challenge on the public record.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against US10478634B2?

If your organisation manufactures, imports, distributes, or resells electromagnetic body-contouring or muscle stimulation devices in the US — including devices marketed under different brand names but using HIFEM or comparable pulsed electromagnetic field technology — US10478634B2 represents a material FTO risk. This case confirms that BTL actively enforces the patent and will seek permanent injunctive relief and willfulness findings. The injunction’s explicit coverage of indirect infringement and downstream distribution channels means that even resellers with no knowledge of the underlying technology can face liability.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US10478634B2 against your device specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag related BTL family members that may extend coverage. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also allow you to track BTL’s enforcement activity in real time — alerting your team if new actions are filed against similar devices or distribution channels, so your legal and commercial teams can respond proactively.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478634B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar patent enforcement cases in medical aesthetics & HIFEM technology

Browse related patent and trademark infringement actions involving HIFEM body-contouring devices and medical aesthetics IP disputes before the Delaware District Court and peer jurisdictions.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
BTL Industries, Inc. patent enforcement history, Delaware case history, BTL Industries, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
BTL v. Cartessa AestheticsHIFEM device infringement casesD. Del. default judgment IP casesAesthetic device Lanham Act cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the body-contouring device IP landscape

BTL’s sweeping default victory confirms that HIFEM technology enforcement extends well beyond device manufacturers into distribution and digital channels.

Third-party platform orders set a precedent for digital enforcement

The order directing GoDaddy and Cloudflare to immediately disable PBT’s domains is a notable enforcement tool. IP owners in the medical aesthetics space — and adjacent device sectors — should note that courts in D. Del. are willing to extend injunctive relief to infrastructure providers when evasion risk is present. This approach is increasingly available to plaintiffs in default postures.

Willfulness finding without a trial: implications for follow-on actions

A default-based willfulness finding against PBT creates a public record BTL can reference in future enforcement. Competitors or resellers aware of this judgment who continue stocking similar devices may face heightened exposure. For in-house counsel in the aesthetics device space, this case is a useful precedent to cite when issuing cease-and-desist letters to downstream distributors.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis for the medical aesthetics device sector, including BTL’s enforcement posture across D. Del. and beyond.
HIFEM claim scope analysisBTL enforcement historyFTO risk for HIFEM devices
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

BTL v PBT — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Protect your position in the HIFEM body-contouring patent landscape

BTL’s enforcement of US10478634B2 confirms active patent monitoring in the medical aesthetics sector. Run an FTO analysis on your device pipeline and set litigation alerts to track new BTL enforcement actions before they affect your commercial strategy.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.