BTL Industries v. Rejuva Fresh: Magnetic Stimulation Patent Dispute Resolved via Consent Judgment
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | BTL Industries, Inc. v. Rejuva Fresh, LLC & Polly Jacobs |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-00032 (D. Maine) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for Maine |
| Duration | Jan 2023 – Jan 2026 ~3 years |
| Outcome | Settled – Consent Judgment |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Marks at Issue | EMSLIM, EMSZERO, EMSHAPE, EMSTRONG, EMVISAGE |
Case Overview
A nearly three-year patent infringement dispute over aesthetic magnetic stimulation technology concluded in January 2026 when BTL Industries, Inc. secured a consent judgment against Rejuva Fresh, LLC and individual co-defendant Polly Jacobs in the U.S. District Court for Maine (Case No. 1:23-cv-00032).
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Global manufacturer and innovator in non-invasive body contouring and aesthetic energy-based treatment devices with a substantial patent portfolio.
🛡️ Defendants
U.S.-based entity that allegedly offered and sold devices falling within BTL’s patented technology claims, operating under marks including EMSLIM and EMSZERO.
Patents at Issue
Five issued U.S. patents were asserted, collectively defining BTL’s intellectual property perimeter around electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMS) and high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) technologies. The family includes titles such as “Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field” and “Magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments”, spanning method and device claims.
Developing a magnetic stimulation product?
Check if your aesthetic device design might infringe these or related patents.
The Resolution & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case resolved via consent judgment. Both BTL’s complaint and Rejuva Fresh’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney’s fees.
The parties waived all appellate rights, and the Maine District Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and consent order. No specific monetary damages figure was publicly disclosed.
Injunctive Terms of the Consent Judgment
Under the consent judgment, Rejuva Fresh is enjoined on two distinct axes:
1. Products: Rejuva Fresh, and all entities acting under its control, are enjoined under the consent judgment from engaging in any U.S. sales, offers for sale, marketing, advertising, distribution, use, or importation of the accused products or any devices “not colorably different therefrom” — language directly invoking the colorable differences doctrine.
2. Trademarks/Brand: Under the consent judgment, the defendants are enjoined from using BTL’s marks or Rejuva Fresh’s own marks — including but not limited to EMSHAPE, EMSTRONG, EMSZERO, EMSLIM, and EMVISAGE — or any “substantially similar” marks in U.S. commerce.
Settlement Analysis
The case was brought as an infringement action. The consent judgment expressly states it is “not to be construed as a finding for or against any Party” — standard settlement language that preserves both parties’ legal positions.
Legal Significance
Five patents were asserted, with the family covering aesthetic magnetic stimulation method and device claims.
The “colorably different” language in the consent judgment is particularly notable for practitioners — it is the operative standard in contempt proceedings (see TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., Fed. Cir. 2011).
Strategic Takeaways
For Accused Infringers: The “colorably different” standard in the consent judgment limits design-around flexibility post-settlement. Counterclaims were raised and dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement.
For R&D Teams: Companies developing EM-stimulation, HIFEM, or related aesthetic device technology must conduct rigorous Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis against BTL’s five-patent portfolio before commercialization. The trademark landscape — particularly EM-prefixed brand names — carries independent legal risk beyond patent infringement exposure.
Filing a magnetic stimulation patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in aesthetic magnetic stimulation technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 5 asserted patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in magnetic stimulation patents
- Understand enforcement patterns and injunctive relief
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Aesthetic Magnetic Stimulation Devices
5 Patents Asserted
Covering methods and devices
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & IP Professionals
“Colorably different” language in consent judgments is enforceable through contempt proceedings.
Explore precedents →Consent judgments with retained court jurisdiction provide ongoing enforcement infrastructure without appellate uncertainty.
Understand enforcement mechanisms →For R&D Leaders
Any EM-stimulation or HIFEM aesthetic device development requires rigorous FTO clearance against BTL’s asserted patent portfolio.
Start FTO analysis for my product →EM-prefixed product naming in the aesthetic device sector now carries trademark litigation exposure independent of patent risk.
Check trademark risk →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.