BTL Industries, Inc. v. Bioskin Laser LLC

Background

BTL Industries, Inc. brought four claims against Bioskin Laser LLC, Bioskin Laser II LLC, and Santa Cohen. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634; trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; federal unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125; and common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The defendants were served on October 20, 2023, but did not appear or otherwise respond. The court stated that the defendants’ business operations in New York gave rise to BTL’s injuries and that personal jurisdiction was proper. The court also found that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York.

Default Judgment

The court explained that a defendant’s default admits the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations, but the court must still determine whether those allegations establish legal liability. The court found that the complaint adequately alleged each claim, including unauthorized use of BTL’s patented technology, use of counterfeit versions of BTL’s trademarks, advertisements representing the defendants’ products as authentic and made by BTL, and bad faith associated with the use of counterfeit marks.

The court granted default judgment. It entered judgment for BTL and against the defendants on all four causes of action:

- the first cause of action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634; - the second cause of action for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; - the third cause of action for federal unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125; and - the fourth cause of action for common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Damages and Injunction

The order states that BTL is awarded $228,690 in actual damages against the defendants on all causes of action. Alternatively, it states that BTL is awarded $300,000 in statutory damages against the defendants on the federal trademark-infringement claim.

The court also awarded permanent injunctive relief on the patent-infringement and trademark-infringement claims. The defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and persons acting in concert with them are enjoined from further infringement of BTL’s patents and trademarks, including U.S. Patent No. 10,478,634 and the EMSCULPT® and BTL® trademarks. The court stated that a separate order referring the case for a damages inquiry would issue.

Sealing

The court granted BTL’s motion to seal narrow portions of its memorandum supporting the request for default judgment and supporting declarations. The Clerk was directed to keep Docket Nos. 25, 26, and 27 under seal and close the letter motion at Docket No. 19.

Classification

This is classified as a procedural order because the court entered default judgment based on the defendants’ failure to appear. Although the court evaluated whether the complaint adequately established liability, the claims were not tested through an adversarial merits proceeding.