BTL Industries v. Rejuva Fresh: Magnetic Stimulation Patent Dispute Ends in Permanent Injunction

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 — including a sweeping permanent injunction — against Rejuva Fresh, LLC in the U.S. District Court for Maine (Case No. 1:23-cv-00032).

The Parties

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:

• • US9,636,519 B2 — Foundational aesthetic magnetic field treatment methodology
• • US10,478,634 B2 — Aesthetic method of biological structure treatment by magnetic field
• • US10,596,386 B2 — Magnetic stimulation methods and devices for therapeutic treatments
• • US10,695,575 B1 — Continuation-related magnetic stimulation technology
• • US11,266,852 B2 — Advanced magnetic stimulation therapeutic device claims

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case resolved via consent judgment and permanent injunction — a plaintiff-favorable resolution that, while technically not an adjudicated finding of infringement or validity, carries substantial practical enforcement weight. 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.

Critically, 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 Relief: Scope and Significance

The permanent injunction entered against Rejuva Fresh is notably broad, operating on two distinct axes:

1. Product Injunction: Rejuva Fresh, and all entities acting under its control, are permanently prohibited 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. Trademark/Brand Injunction: Defendants are permanently enjoined from using BTL’s marks or Rejuva Fresh’s own marks — specifically naming EMSHAPE, EMSTRONG, EMSZERO, EMSLIM, and EMVISAGE — or any “substantially similar” marks in U.S. commerce. This dual-track injunction combining patent and trademark protection is strategically significant.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was brought as a straightforward 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 while delivering the functional outcome of a plaintiff victory through injunctive relief. The breadth of the injunction, covering replacement parts and related products alongside the primary accused devices, suggests BTL’s prosecution strategy was designed to foreclose the entire product category.

Legal Significance

This case illustrates a critical enforcement pattern in the aesthetic medical device sector: portfolio-based assertion using overlapping patent families creates settlement leverage that often renders full adjudication unnecessary. By asserting five patents spanning method claims, device claims, and continuation patents, BTL effectively increased the litigation risk calculus for Rejuva Fresh substantially.

The “colorably different” language in the injunction is particularly notable for practitioners — it is the operative standard in contempt proceedings (see TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., Fed. Cir. 2011) and signals that BTL secured post-judgment monitoring rights with a low threshold for future enforcement.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: Multi-patent assertion across method and device claim types in a single filing maximizes settlement pressure. Securing injunctive relief through consent judgment — even without damages — can deliver decisive commercial outcomes.

For Accused Infringers: The “colorably different” injunction standard limits design-around flexibility post-settlement. Counterclaims were raised but ultimately dismissed — indicating early validity challenges did not yield sufficient leverage to alter the outcome.

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 family before commercialization. The trademark landscape — particularly EM-prefixed brand names — carries independent legal risk beyond patent infringement exposure.