The Rejuva Fresh lawsuit was a patent and trademark case brought by BTL Industries, the maker of the EMSCULPT body-contouring device, against Rejuva Fresh LLC and its sole owner Polly Jacobs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Filed in January 2023, the case ended three years later in a January 2026 consent judgment that permanently barred Rejuva Fresh from selling the accused electromagnetic body-sculpting machines or using the disputed brand names in the United States. No public damages figure was disclosed, and each side paid its own legal costs.1PatSnap. BTL Industries v. Rejuva Fresh Magnetic Stimulation Patent Dispute Ends in Consent Judgment
Who Rejuva Fresh Is
Rejuva Fresh LLC is a one-employee aesthetic-equipment supplier based in Ellsworth, Maine. Founded in 2021 and incorporated in 2022, the company sells spa and beauty equipment, including body-sculpting, microneedling, and laser systems, to commercial customers around the country. Polly Jacobs is the sole owner and CEO.2BBB. Rejuva Fresh LLC BBB Business Profile
BTL Industries, the plaintiff, developed the EMSCULPT product line, which uses high-intensity focused electromagnetic energy to induce muscle contractions. BTL markets the technology under names including EMSCULPT, EMSCULPT NEO, and EMFACE.3EQS News. BTL Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against WonderFace Device
What BTL Accused Rejuva Fresh Of
BTL’s January 17, 2023 complaint contained nine counts, including patent infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising, and violations of the Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.4CourtListener. BTL Industries Inc. v. Rejuva Fresh LLC Docket The heart of the case was that Rejuva Fresh marketed and sold electromagnetic body-sculpting machines under names like EMSZERO NEO, EMSLIM NEO, and EMShape Neo that allegedly copied BTL’s patented technology and traded on its brand.5GovInfo. BTL Industries v. Rejuva Fresh Preliminary Injunction Order
On the patent side, BTL relied on five U.S. patents covering its EMSCULPT device, issued between 2017 and 2022: Patent Nos. 9,636,519; 10,478,634; 10,596,386; 10,695,575; and 11,266,852.6GovInfo. BTL Industries Inc. v. Rejuva Fresh LLC, Order on Preliminary Injunction On the trademark side, BTL pointed to federally registered marks including HIFEM, EMSCULPT, EMSCULPT NEO, and a stylized EM, alleging Rejuva Fresh used confusingly similar names such as “EMSCULPTING.” BTL also alleged that Rejuva Fresh’s marketing and instruction manuals copied language directly from BTL’s own materials.7Justia. BTL Industries, Inc. v. Rejuva Fresh LLC, Order on Motions to Dismiss
In April 2024, BTL filed a second lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-00139) accusing Rejuva Fresh of infringing patents behind its EMFACE facial-contouring device, which combines radiofrequency energy with electromagnetic stimulation. A magistrate judge consolidated the two cases in November 2024 after finding they shared common legal questions.8GovInfo. BTL Industries Inc. v. Rejuva Fresh LLC, Order on Consolidation
Why the Case Shifted Before Settlement
Two rulings changed the trajectory of the litigation. On May 7, 2025, Judge Stacey D. Neumann denied BTL’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have halted Rejuva Fresh’s sales during the case. The court narrowed the patent dispute to a single claim (claim 9 of Patent No. 11,266,852) and found that Rejuva Fresh had raised a “substantial question” about whether the phrase “enhancing the visual appearance of a patient” in that claim was impermissibly vague. On the trademark claims, the court weighed similarities in the marks and overlapping customer base against differences in sales channels (BTL ships directly, while Rejuva Fresh uses drop shipping) and only one instance of actual consumer confusion, and denied injunctive relief across the board.5GovInfo. BTL Industries v. Rejuva Fresh Preliminary Injunction Order
The bigger blow came in August 2025, when Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf issued a recommended claim-construction decision finding that the patent terms “toned” and “enhance the visual appearance of the patient” were indefinite, meaning too subjective to give the patents clear boundaries.9LA Law. BTL Industries, Inc. v. Rejuva Fresh LLC If adopted, that finding would have invalidated the affected patent claims entirely. Rather than press on to trial, the parties settled.
What the Consent Judgment Requires
The January 2026 consent judgment dismissed both BTL’s complaint and Rejuva Fresh’s counterclaims with prejudice, so neither side can refile them. Each party bore its own legal costs, and no monetary damages figure was made public. The parties waived their appellate rights, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.1PatSnap. BTL Industries v. Rejuva Fresh Magnetic Stimulation Patent Dispute Ends in Consent Judgment
Two permanent injunctions apply to Rejuva Fresh and any entities it controls:
- A product ban that prohibits selling, marketing, distributing, using, or importing the accused devices, or any devices “not colorably different” from them, in the United States.
- A trademark ban that prohibits use of BTL’s marks and of Rejuva Fresh’s own disputed marks in U.S. commerce, specifically EMSHAPE, EMSTRONG, EMSZERO, EMSLIM, and EMVISAGE, along with any substantially similar marks.
What Rejuva Fresh Is Doing Now
Rejuva Fresh continued operating after the settlement. In late 2025 the company launched three new products under different brand names: the CaviTONE LEGACY, which combines ultrasound radiofrequency with electro-muscle stimulation and laser technology; the FlowWave Focus, a focused shockwave system; and the SmartPulse COOL, an FDA-cleared CO2 fractional laser. None of the new names overlap with the marks banned under the consent judgment. The company reported record equipment deployments in 2025 across U.S. and international markets.10PR Newswire. Rejuva Fresh Unveils Three Cutting-Edge Technologies to Empower Providers With a Competitive Edge in 2026