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.
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.
Filing to Default Judgment in 261 days
261-day resolution — notably swift for a multi-claim IP enforcement action in D. Del.
Default judgment granted: what the order means for both parties
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) defaultBTL 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 grantedPBT 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 exclusionHIFEM 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 enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BTL Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical aesthetics device manufacturer — holder of US10478634B2 (EMSCULPT/HIFEM technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | PBT Financial LLC | Company | PBT Financial LLC d/b/a Photo Biotech — seller of allegedly counterfeit body-contouring devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Charles Weinblatt | 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 | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | Law Firm | Representing BTL Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
US10478634B2 — HIFEM body-contouring and muscle stimulation technology
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478634B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable E TONE-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedBTL Industries, Inc.’s broader IP enforcement history
BTL Industries, Inc.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
How US10478634B2’s claim scope affects freedom-to-operate for HIFEM competitors
The asserted patent’s coverage of HIFEM-based body-contouring methodology has not been narrowed by any post-grant review or adverse claim construction — the default posture means no invalidity defence was litigated. Competitors developing electromagnetic muscle stimulation devices should conduct a fresh FTO review against the current claim scope before commercialising in the US market.
BTL’s trademark portfolio creates layered IP risk beyond the patent
BTL’s enforcement combined patent, Lanham Act, and Delaware state law claims in a single action. This stacking strategy — particularly the § 1117(c) statutory damages route for counterfeit marks — means that even a product that avoids patent infringement may still attract six-figure liability if it uses confusingly similar branding. Distributors should audit product labelling independently of any patent clearance analysis.
BTL v PBT — key questions answered
BTL Industries asserted US Patent No. 10,478,634 (B2), application number US16/034793, covering high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) body-contouring and muscle stimulation technology underlying the EMSCULPT product line. The court found PBT’s infringement to be direct, indirect, and willful.
PBT Financial LLC d/b/a Photo Biotech failed to appear or respond to the complaint filed by BTL Industries. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), the court may enter a default judgment when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend. Judge Connolly granted BTL’s motion for default judgment, accepting BTL’s allegations as true and awarding full relief including damages, permanent injunction, and third-party enforcement orders.
The Delaware District Court awarded BTL Industries $100,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) for PBT’s use of a counterfeit mark. Statutory damages under § 1117(c) are available per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, without requiring proof of actual damages — a significant advantage in default proceedings where discovery of the infringer’s revenues is not available.
The case involved BTL’s federally registered trademarks EMTONE®, EMSCULPT®, EMSCULPT NEO®, EM®, and HIFEM®, collectively referred to as the BTL Trademarks. PBT was found to have used these marks and confusingly similar variations on non-genuine body-contouring products, violating the Lanham Act, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Delaware common law.
The accused products included devices marketed as ‘E-TONE,’ ‘ETONE,’ the ‘Freedom Body PFM machine’ (also known as Freedom Body RF Multi-Application), the ‘Freedom PFM PFD machine’ (also known as Freedom+), and devices marketed using the HIFEM designation. These were characterised as non-genuine or materially different products bearing BTL’s protected marks without authorisation.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.