DCT
2:24-cv-03212
Hyper Ice Inc v. Bob Brad LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Bob and Brad, LLC (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-03212, D. Minn., 01/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because the Defendant is incorporated in Minnesota, maintains its principal place of business there, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage guns infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and functionality of such devices, particularly concerning the attachment of massage heads.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns handheld percussive massage devices, a product category that has gained significant popularity in the consumer health and wellness market for muscle recovery and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was issued on January 2, 2024, and the complaint was filed the following day, on January 3, 2024. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | '482 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App.) |
| 2024-01-02 | '482 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-01-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art massaging devices suffered from deficiencies such as being "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" ('482 Patent, col. 1:28-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massager designed to address these problems. The solution detailed in the specification includes a specific mechanical layout, often a "Scotch yoke" drive mechanism, to convert the motor's rotary motion into linear percussion ('482 Patent, col. 5:14-18). A key feature is a "quick-connect system" that enables a user to attach a massaging head to the reciprocating piston, with embodiments described that allow this to be done without turning the device off ('482 Patent, col. 6:55-57).
- Technical Importance: The described design purports to offer a more robust, user-friendly, and durable device by improving the head-swapping process and addressing common points of failure like noise and overheating in earlier devices ('482 Patent, col. 1:28-32, col. 5:22-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- a housing;
- a piston with a distal end having a substantially cylindrical bore;
- a motor within the housing to reciprocate the piston;
- a drive mechanism controlling a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- a quick-connect system for securing a massaging head, which is configured to secure the head by sliding it into the bore "while the piston reciprocates."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names seven accused products: the D6 Pro Massage Gun, X6 Pro Massage Gun, C2 Massage Gun, T2 Massage Gun, Q2 Mini Massage Gun, Air 2 Mini Massage Gun, and the UNI Massage Gun (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶15). It alleges that these products possess the features recited in the elements of Claim 1 but does not provide further technical detail regarding their specific construction or operation (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges the products are manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendant but makes no specific allegations regarding their market position (Compl. ¶12, ¶14).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing | The complaint alleges the accused products include a housing. | ¶15a | col. 3:35-39 |
| a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore | The complaint alleges the accused products include a piston with a distal end that has a substantially cylindrical bore. | ¶15b | col. 6:57-62 |
| a motor at least partially within the housing and operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston, wherein the motor is configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed | The complaint alleges the accused products include a motor configured to cause the piston to reciprocate. | ¶15c | col. 3:41-44 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The complaint alleges the accused products include a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined piston stroke length. | ¶15d | col. 5:14-18 |
| a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, wherein the quick-connect system is configured to secure the first massaging head...by a proximal end of the massaging head being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates... | The complaint alleges the accused products include a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head in this manner. | ¶15e | col. 6:46-57 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The final limitation of Claim 1 requires the quick-connect system to be "configured to secure the first massaging head... while the piston reciprocates." This raises the question of whether this language requires a specific design intended for "hot-swapping" heads, or if it is met by any attachment mechanism that is merely capable of securing a head while the device is in motion.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not describe the internal workings of the accused products. A central question for discovery will be one of evidentiary proof: what is the actual structure and operational mode of the accused products' "drive mechanism" and "quick-connect system"? Does the evidence show a technical correspondence to the claimed elements, particularly when those elements are construed in light of the patent's specification?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "quick-connect system ... configured to secure the first massaging head ... while the piston reciprocates"
Context and Importance: This functional language appears to be the most specific and potentially distinguishing feature of the claim. The interpretation of "configured to" will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it dictates the required capability of the accused products' head attachment mechanism.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "configured to" simply means the structure is capable of performing the function. The specification supports this by describing that the system "allows a user to quickly switch massaging heads 620... without turning off the massaging device 100" ('482 Patent, col. 6:52-57).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue "configured to" implies a specific design or intent for that function, not just incidental capability. They might point to the detailed magnetic attachment embodiment (magnets 606, 624) as the structure that enables this function, suggesting that systems without such features are not so "configured" ('482 Patent, col. 6:57-67; FIG. 6).
The Term: "drive mechanism"
Context and Importance: The definition of the "drive mechanism" is central to the claimed invention's mechanical core. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification heavily emphasizes a "Scotch yoke" as the exemplary drive mechanism ('482 Patent, col. 5:14-18). The case could turn on whether this term is limited to that embodiment or covers other mechanical linkages.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad and not explicitly limited to a Scotch yoke. A party could argue it encompasses any mechanism that converts motor rotation into the claimed reciprocating motion with a predetermined stroke.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent's consistent and detailed disclosure of the Scotch yoke mechanism ('482 Patent, FIG. 4; col. 5:1-18) should inform the scope of the term, potentially limiting it to that specific type of drive or its structural equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges "direct infringement" and does not plead any specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of knowledge or intent (Compl. ¶10, ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. While the prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. §285, it does not plead the factual basis typically required for a willfulness claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶5).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and function: How will the court construe the phrase "configured to secure ... while the piston reciprocates"? Will this be interpreted as requiring a specific structural design intended for that purpose, or will the mere capability of an attachment system to function while in motion be sufficient to meet the limitation?
- A key challenge will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of technical specifics on the accused devices, the case will depend heavily on evidence developed during discovery. Does the internal construction of Defendant's products—specifically their drive and head-attachment mechanisms—actually perform the functions required by Claim 1 when that claim is properly construed?