DCT

2:20-cv-01714

Theragun Inc v. Achedaway Shenzhen Technology Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01714, C.D. Cal., 02/24/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, and have committed acts of infringement within the district, including making, using, selling, or importing infringing products from a facility in Commerce, California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ percussive massage device attachment infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's massage element.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns attachments for handheld percussive massage devices, a product category focused on muscle treatment and recovery.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of the alleged infringement via a letter on October 16, 2019, demanding that they cease infringing activities. Defendants allegedly responded but did not state they would cease, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-07-11 U.S. Patent No. D849,260 Priority Date
2019-05-21 U.S. Patent No. D849,260 Issued
Early Oct 2019 Plaintiff first saw advertisement for Defendants' accused product
2019-10-16 Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendants regarding alleged infringement
2019-11-21 Defendants responded to Plaintiff's notice letter
2020-02-24 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D849,260, “Massage Element,” issued May 21, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '260 Patent does not describe a technical problem in a background section. Instead, it protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a massage element.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the massage attachment. The complaint describes the claimed ornamental design as including a circular, dome-shaped head with a "flattened" point, positioned atop a bottom piece that decreases in radius and features a circular rounded ridge extending beyond the dome-head's circumference, creating a distinctive crevice between the two parts (Compl. ¶14). The design's overall visual impression is defined by the solid lines in its figures, such as Figure 1 and Figure 6 ('260 Patent, Figs. 1, 6).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's patented and patent-pending devices have received industry praise and recognition, suggesting the distinctive design contributes to its market identity and success (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents typically contain a single claim, which is directed to the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings.
  • The single claim of the '260 Patent recites: "The ornamental design for a massage element, as shown and described." ('260 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-9.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Infringing Attachment" for percussive massage devices manufactured and sold by Defendants Achedaway, Tian, Shanghai, and 4PX (Compl. ¶¶2, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is an attachment head for a handheld percussive massage device (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges Defendants market and sell their device and the accused attachment through the same channels as Plaintiff, including online at www.achedaway.com, Amazon, and social media (Compl. ¶¶17, 21-22). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Achedaway website showing the accused attachment alongside the massage device. (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint directly alleges that the accused attachment is "nearly identical" to the patented design and that the resemblance is such that it would deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶2, 22).

The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of Figure 6 from the '260 Patent and a photograph of the "Defendants' Infringing Attachment" to support its infringement claim (Compl. ¶22). This visual, presented in Paragraph 22, directly contrasts the patented design with the accused product to highlight their alleged substantial similarity (Compl. ¶22). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants directly infringe by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing the attachment (Compl. ¶23). The infringement claim is based on allegations of literal infringement or, alternatively, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶24).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The core of the dispute will be a visual comparison between the '260 Patent's drawings and the physical accused product. The central question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' attachment is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '260 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
    • Scope Questions: While design patents lack traditional claim terms, the scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. The analysis will question whether any visual differences between the accused product and the patent figures are minor enough to be overlooked by the ordinary observer, or if they create a sufficiently distinct overall visual impression to avoid infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. The patent-in-suit is a design patent whose single claim protects the "ornamental design for a massage element, as shown and described." ('260 Patent, Claim). The scope is defined by the patent's drawings, not by textual limitations that would be subject to a traditional claim construction analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks an injunction against contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶D), the body of the complaint focuses primarily on allegations of direct infringement (Compl. ¶23). However, the complaint does allege that Defendants "supplied and continues to supply unlawful products," which may provide a factual basis for an indirect infringement theory (Compl. ¶8).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants on October 16, 2019, providing actual notice of the '260 Patent and the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that Defendants have continued their infringing activities "in conscious disregard" of Plaintiff's rights after receiving this notice, which forms the basis for the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶¶19, 28).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Is the ornamental design of the Defendants' massage attachment "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '260 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The case will likely turn on a direct comparison of the accused product to the patent's figures, with the side-by-side image provided in the complaint serving as a key piece of evidence.
  • A key question regarding damages will be willfulness: Did Defendants' continuation of their allegedly infringing activities after receiving a notice letter on October 16, 2019, constitute willful infringement? The answer will depend on the sufficiency of the notice and the nature of Defendants' conduct post-notice.