BTL Industries v. Sincoheren US: EMSCULPT NEO Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
BTL Industries, holder of two patents covering its EMSCULPT NEO high-intensity electromagnetic body-sculpting device, sued Sincoheren US, Aesthetic Revolution, and individual defendant David Sorensen in Utah federal court. All claims were dismissed with prejudice in 117 days, with each party bearing its own legal costs.
EMSCULPT NEO patent dispute ends swiftly with no-fault dismissal
BTL Industries, Inc., the developer of the EMSCULPT NEO electromagnetic body-sculpting platform, filed this infringement action on 28 August 2024 in the Utah District Court before Judge Robert J. Shelby. BTL asserted two patents — US10478634B2 and US9636519B2 — against three defendants: Sincoheren US LLC, Aesthetic Revolution LLC, and individual David William Sorensen, alleging that competing devices including the Embodi HI-EMT Body, Magic Chair, Musculpt, and several pelvic floor chairs infringed BTL’s protected technology.
The case closed on 23 December 2024, just 117 days after filing, via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). BTL dismissed Sincoheren US LLC and Aesthetic Revolution LLC unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — available because neither entity had served an answer or filed a motion for summary judgment. BTL and Sorensen jointly stipulated to dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) as the two parties who had made formal appearances. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring BTL from refiling the same patent claims against these defendants.
The sub-four-month resolution is notable for a multi-defendant patent case involving two utility patents and numerous accused products. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal, combined with each party bearing its own costs, is consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement — though the public record does not confirm any such terms. The rapid closure before any substantive court filings suggests the parties reached an accommodation shortly after BTL’s initial filing pressure was applied.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 117 days
117 days — resolved significantly faster than the median U.S. patent case (~2.5 years)
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both sides
Rule 41 dismissal: two tracks, one outcome
BTL used two distinct Rule 41 pathways. Against Sincoheren and Aesthetic Revolution — who had not yet answered — BTL filed a unilateral notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), requiring no court order. Against Sorensen, who had appeared, BTL and Sorensen filed a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both routes resulted in dismissal with prejudice, meaning the district court retains no further jurisdiction over these claims.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) & (ii)With prejudice bars BTL from refiling these specific claims
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. BTL cannot refile US10478634B2 or US9636519B2 infringement claims against Sincoheren US, Aesthetic Revolution, or Sorensen based on the same accused conduct. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, and is typically consistent with a settled dispute or a negotiated covenant not to sue — though the public record does not confirm specific settlement terms.
Res judicata appliesDefendants exit with no liability finding — but patents remain live
All three defendants avoided any judicial finding of infringement. However, the dismissal does not invalidate BTL’s patents. US10478634B2 and US9636519B2 remain in force and enforceable against third parties. Other distributors or manufacturers of competing HI-EMT devices — not party to this action — remain exposed to potential future enforcement. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause suggests no defendant was positioned to seek attorney-fee sanctions under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No invalidity rulingEarly exit suggests leverage achieved — competitive dynamics shift
BTL’s filing strategy — asserting two patents against multiple HI-EMT device distributors including pelvic floor chairs and body sculpting systems — suggests a broad enforcement sweep of its EMSCULPT NEO IP. Resolution within 117 days, before any discovery or claim construction, is consistent with BTL achieving a commercial outcome (licensing, market exit, or conduct change) without prolonged litigation. Competitors in the electromagnetic muscle stimulation space should treat this outcome as a signal of active enforcement posture.
Active enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Btl Industries, Inc. | Company | Medical aesthetics device company — holder of US10478634B2 and US9636519B2 (EMSCULPT NEO)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sincoheren US LLC | Company | Sincoheren US LLC, Aesthetic Revolution LLC, and individual David Sorensen — distributors of competing HI-EMT devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Aesthetic Revolution LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | David William Sorensen | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirk R. Harris | Attorney | Counsel for Btl Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vicki Zgodny | Attorney | Counsel for Btl Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Maschoff Brennan PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Btl Industries, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert J. Shelby | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal invokes two distinct Rule 41 mechanisms in a single document, reflecting the procedural posture of each defendant. The with-prejudice designation is the operative commercial term: it closes the door on re-litigation of these specific claims against these parties. Notably, the verdict is silent on any licensing terms, royalty payments, or conduct undertakings — standard for stipulated dismissals where parties wish to keep commercial terms confidential. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side.
US10478634B2 & US9636519B2 — High-Intensity Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation
US10478634B2 (application US16/034793) and US9636519B2 (application US14/789658) both protect technology in the high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) space, covering the devices and methods underpinning BTL’s EMSCULPT NEO platform. These patents claim apparatus and methods for inducing supramaximal muscle contractions using electromagnetic fields — a therapeutic and aesthetic modality applied to body sculpting and pelvic floor rehabilitation. The earlier application date of US9636519B2 suggests it represents foundational IP in BTL’s portfolio, with US10478634B2 likely covering later refinements or specific device configurations.
For competitors in the rapidly expanding medical aesthetics and pelvic health device markets, these two patents represent a meaningful barrier. The EMSCULPT NEO platform holds significant commercial market share, and BTL’s willingness to assert both patents simultaneously against multiple distributors signals active portfolio management. Any manufacturer or distributor of HI-EMT body sculpting, muscle stimulation, or electromagnetic pelvic floor devices targeting the U.S. market should treat these patents as priority clearance targets. The accused product list — spanning body sculpting chairs, pelvic floor applicators, and full-body HI-EMT systems — indicates broad claim scope.
Should you run an FTO against US10478634B2 and US9636519B2?
If your company develops, distributes, or plans to launch any high-intensity electromagnetic muscle stimulation device in the United States — including pelvic floor chairs, body sculpting systems, or HI-EMT applicators — an FTO analysis against BTL’s two asserted patents is strongly advisable. This case demonstrates that BTL actively monitors the market and is prepared to file multi-defendant infringement actions in federal court with short notice. The product categories named in this suit (EMSKEGEL Chair, Magic Chair, Musculpt, IntegraPelvix) span both the body sculpting and pelvic health segments.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your device’s technical features against the independent claims of US10478634B2 and US9636519B2, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flag any related BTL continuation or divisional applications that may extend the enforcement landscape. For in-house IP teams at aesthetics device companies, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can provide early warning of new BTL filings before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478634B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar HIFEM and medical aesthetics patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving high-intensity electromagnetic muscle stimulation and medical aesthetics devices in U.S. federal courts.
What this case signals for the electromagnetic body-sculpting IP landscape
BTL’s rapid-fire, multi-defendant filing strategy in Utah suggests a systematic approach to clearing the HI-EMT competitive field.
BTL’s two-patent filing creates a broad infringement net
By asserting both US10478634B2 and US9636519B2 against eight distinct accused products across three defendants, BTL demonstrates a portfolio-enforcement approach. Any company distributing HI-EMT or pelvic floor electromagnetic stimulation devices in the U.S. should assess clearance against both patents before commercialising products.
117-day resolution signals settlement leverage, not weak claims
The speed of resolution — before answers were filed — should not be read as BTL having weak patents. With-prejudice dismissal in multi-defendant cases of this type typically reflects defendants conceding commercial terms. BTL’s patents remain valid and enforceable, and the outcome likely strengthens future demand letters to other market participants.
Btl v Sincoheren — key questions answered
BTL Industries asserted two patents: US10478634B2 (application US16/034793) and US9636519B2 (application US14/789658). Both cover high-intensity electromagnetic muscle stimulation technology underlying the EMSCULPT NEO platform. The case was filed in the Utah District Court on 28 August 2024.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) against Sincoheren and Aesthetic Revolution (who had not answered), and Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) via stipulation with Sorensen. A with-prejudice dismissal means BTL cannot refile the same patent claims against the same defendants. The public record does not disclose settlement terms, but the rapid resolution and with-prejudice designation are consistent with a negotiated commercial outcome.
The accused products listed in the case include the EMSKEGEL Chair, Embodi HI-EMT Body, IntegraPelvix, Magic Chair, Miracle Chair, Musculpt device, Pelvic Floor Chair, and BTL’s own EMSCULPT NEO (as the reference product). These span both aesthetic body sculpting and pelvic floor rehabilitation device categories.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice is a procedural resolution of claims between these specific parties — it does not constitute an invalidity finding or any ruling on the merits. US10478634B2 and US9636519B2 remain in force and fully enforceable against third parties not named in this action.
The case resolved in 117 days — filed 28 August 2024 and closed 23 December 2024. This is significantly faster than the U.S. median for patent infringement cases, which typically take two or more years. The rapid closure, before any defendant filed an answer, suggests the parties reached a commercial understanding shortly after the complaint was served.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.