DCT
2:22-cv-00618
Therabody Inc v. TJX Companies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: TJX Companies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00618, C.D. Cal., 04/04/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains regular places of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and derives substantial revenue from activities within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s percussive massage guns infringe three patents related to the ergonomic and geometric design of a multi-grip, triangular handle.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld electronic percussive massage devices, a product category that has gained significant popularity in the consumer wellness and fitness markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff discovered the accused product in December 2021 and sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on December 22, 2021. The complaint also alleges, without providing specific details, that Defendant has been on notice of Plaintiff's patents since at least July 2021, a fact which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-03-14 | Earliest Priority Date for ’448, ’565, and ’722 Patents |
| 2020-07-07 | U.S. Patent No. 10,702,448 Issues |
| 2021-02-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,918,565 Issues |
| 2021-07-XX | Approximate date Plaintiff alleges Defendant received notice |
| 2021-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,160,722 Issues |
| 2021-12-XX | Plaintiff allegedly becomes aware of Accused Product sales |
| 2021-12-22 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-04-04 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,702,448, "Percussive Massage Device and Method of Use," issued July 7, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional massage devices can be "ineffective" and "superficial," creating a need for an improved device ( ’448 Patent, col. 1:30-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a percussive massage device featuring a unique housing with three distinct handle portions that form a handle opening (’448 Patent, col. 1:40-42). The central innovation is the specific geometric arrangement where the axes of these three handle portions "cooperate to form a triangle" (’448 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 14). This design is intended to provide multiple grip options, allowing a user to more effectively self-apply therapy to different areas of the body (’448 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
- Technical Importance: The claimed multi-grip, triangular handle configuration addresses the ergonomic challenge of applying consistent, high-amplitude percussive force to oneself, particularly on hard-to-reach areas like the back and shoulders.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 6 and alleges infringement of "one or more of the '448 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶¶22, 28).
- Essential elements of independent claim 6 include:
- A housing with first, second, and third handle portions defining a handle opening.
- The first, second, and third handle portions define first, second, and third axes, respectively, that "cooperate to form a triangle."
- Each of the three handle portions is "generally straight."
- The design allows a user to grasp any of the three handle portions independently.
- An electrical source, motor, switch, and reciprocating push rod assembly.
U.S. Patent No. 10,918,565, "Percussive massage device and method of use," issued February 16, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’565 Patent addresses the ineffectiveness of prior art massage devices (’565 Patent, col. 1:31-33).
- The Patented Solution: The ’565 Patent claims a similar three-handle percussive massager but adds a specific geometric constraint: the axes defined by the first, second, and third handle portions must be "co-planar" (’565 Patent, col. 22:38-40). This limitation defines the triangular grip as existing in a substantially two-dimensional plane, distinguishing it from designs that might feature handles projecting at various angles from the device body. Figure 25 of the patent illustrates this co-planar arrangement.
- Technical Importance: Requiring the handle axes to be co-planar contributes to a device that is potentially more stable, less bulky, and easier to manipulate during use compared to non-planar multi-grip designs.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges infringement of "one or more of the '565 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶¶37, 43).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A housing with first, second, and third handle portions at least partially defining a handle opening.
- The axes of the three handle portions are "co-planar."
- Each of the three handle portions is "generally straight."
- The design allows a user to grasp any of the three handle portions independently.
- An electrical source, motor, switch, and reciprocating push rod assembly.
U.S. Patent No. 11,160,722, "Percussive Therapy Device and Method of Use," issued November 2, 2021 (Multi-Patent Capsule)
- Technology Synopsis: The ’722 Patent continues the focus on the ergonomic, triangular handle design for percussive massagers (’722 Patent, col. 1:33-35). This patent's asserted claim distinguishes itself by focusing on the geometry of the device's exterior edges rather than its central axes. The invention claims a design where the extended exterior edges of the three handle portions cooperate to form a "second triangle" that "surrounds the handle opening," ensuring a user can grasp any of the portions independently (’722 Patent, col. 23:18-30).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶52).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the overall shape of the Infringing Product's housing, alleging that the exterior edges of its three handle portions form a triangle that surrounds the device's handle opening (Compl. ¶¶54-55).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused device as the "Aduro Sport Recovery Massage Gun Max Grip" (Compl. p.5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentality is a handheld, portable, percussive massage device (Compl. ¶¶23, 38, 53). Its central feature, as depicted in the complaint, is a housing with a triangular frame-like structure containing an opening, which Plaintiff alleges is comprised of three distinct handle portions (Compl. ¶¶24, 39, 54). The complaint alleges the product is sold at Defendant's retail stores, including HomeGoods and TJ Maxx, positioning it in the consumer market (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes an image of the accused product's packaging (Compl. p.5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,702,448 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, wherein the housing includes first, second and third handle portions that cooperate to define a handle opening... | The accused product's body includes a housing with three distinct handle sections surrounding a central opening. The complaint provides an annotated image labeling these portions. (Compl. ¶24). | ¶24 | col. 1:40-42 |
| ...wherein the first handle portion defines a first axis, the second handle portion defines a second axis and the third handle portion defines a third axis, wherein the first, second and third axes cooperate to form a triangle... | The complaint alleges the axes of the three handle portions cooperate to form a triangle. An annotated diagram is provided to illustrate this geometric relationship. (Compl. ¶25). | ¶25 | col. 2:1-2 |
| ...wherein the first handle portion is generally straight, wherein the second handle portion is generally straight, and wherein the third handle portion is generally straight... | Each of the three handle portions of the accused product is alleged to be generally straight. | ¶26 | col. 2:21-23 |
| an electrical source, a motor positioned in the housing, a switch for activating the motor, and a push rod assembly operatively connected to the motor and configured to reciprocate... | The accused product is alleged to contain these standard internal components required for operation as a percussive massage device. | ¶27 | col. 1:42-47 |
10,918,565 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, wherein the housing includes first, second and third handle portions that cooperate to at least partially define a handle opening... | The accused product's body allegedly includes a housing with three handle sections that define a central opening, as shown in an annotated image. (Compl. ¶39). | ¶39 | col. 22:15-18 |
| ...wherein the first handle portion defines a first axis, the second handle portion defines a second axis and the third handle portion defines a third axis, and wherein the first, second and third axes are co-planar... | The complaint alleges that the axes of the three handle portions lie on the same plane. An annotated diagram is provided to illustrate this alleged co-planar relationship. (Compl. ¶40). | ¶40 | col. 22:38-40 |
| ...wherein the first handle portion is generally straight, wherein the second handle portion is generally straight, and wherein the third handle portion is generally straight... | Each of the three handle portions of the accused product is alleged to be generally straight, allowing a user to grasp any of them. | ¶41 | col. 22:41-44 |
| an electrical source, a motor positioned in the housing, a switch for activating the motor, and a push rod assembly operatively connected to the motor and configured to reciprocate... | The accused product is alleged to contain the necessary internal components to function as a percussive massage device. | ¶42 | col. 22:48-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be the construction of geometric terms like "cooperate to form a triangle" and "co-planar." The dispute may focus on whether these terms require mathematical precision or if they can be read more broadly to cover the physical form of the accused product, which necessarily has thickness and potential manufacturing variations. The interpretation of "generally straight" will also be critical, as the accused product's handle portions appear to have some curvature, particularly at the corners where they meet.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be how "co-planarity" is measured and demonstrated on the physical accused product. Another question is whether the visual evidence in the complaint, such as the diagram purporting to show axes forming a triangle (Compl. ¶25), accurately represents the physical characteristics of the accused product.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "generally straight" (’448 Claim 6; ’565 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is crucial because the handle portions of the accused product, as shown in the complaint's images, are not perfectly linear and feature rounded corners. The viability of the infringement claim depends on these curved sections falling within the scope of "generally straight."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications of both the ’448 and ’565 patents provide an explicit definition: "Generally straight means that the majority of the handle portion is straight, but can include rounded edges or corners" (’448 Patent, col. 2:23-28; ’565 Patent, col. 2:27-32). This intrinsic evidence appears to directly support an interpretation that includes some degree of curvature.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the curves on the accused product are more substantial than mere "rounded edges or corners" and constitute a significant portion of the handle's length, thereby falling outside even the patent's own definition.
The Term: "co-planar" (’565 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the key distinguishing limitation of the asserted claim of the ’565 Patent. Infringement hinges on whether the three handle axes of a three-dimensional object can be considered to lie in a single plane. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a potential mismatch between an idealized geometric property and a physical product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that in the context of a physical device, "co-planar" should be understood to mean that the principal longitudinal axes of the handles lie substantially in the same plane, allowing for the physical thickness of the handles and minor deviations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself has a precise mathematical meaning. The patent does not appear to provide a special definition that deviates from this ordinary meaning. A party could argue for a strict construction that requires the axes to lie perfectly in a single plane, a standard the accused physical product might not meet.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement theory is based on Defendant allegedly marketing and promoting the use of the accused product by its customers (Compl. ¶¶28, 43, 59). The contributory infringement theory is based on allegations that the product is not a staple article of commerce and is especially made to be used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶29, 44, 60).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continuing infringing activities after receiving notice. The complaint alleges notice was provided "at least since Plaintiff's December 22, 2021 notification," and also makes a broader claim of notice "at least since July of 2021" (Compl. ¶¶19, 34, 49, 64).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can idealized geometric terms such as "cooperate to form a triangle," "co-planar," and "generally straight," be construed to read on the physical, three-dimensional embodiment of the accused product, with its inherent curvatures and manufacturing tolerances? The patent's explicit definition of "generally straight" may provide significant guidance for that term, but the others remain open questions.
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: what level of factual evidence and expert analysis will be required to demonstrate that the axes of the accused device are, in fact, "co-planar," or that its external edges form a triangle that "surrounds" the handle opening as claimed? The dispute may shift from legal construction to a factual battle over measurements and technical methodologies.