DCT
2:25-cv-05746
Michael Wasilisin v. Therabody Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dr. Michael Wasilisin (California)
- Defendant: Therabody, Inc. d/b/a Therabody (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hecht Partners LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05746, C.D. Cal., 08/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the Central District of California and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that he is the sole inventor of the ornamental designs for two of Defendant’s massage gun attachments, which Defendant patented without naming him as an inventor in alleged breach of an oral agreement, and seeks correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns interchangeable tip attachments for percussion-style massage therapy devices, a prominent category in the consumer health and wellness market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of alleged collaboration beginning in August 2017, where Plaintiff claims to have disclosed his designs for "Thumb" and "Wedge" attachments to Defendant's founder under an oral agreement for inventorship credit and compensation. Defendant subsequently filed for and obtained design patents on the attachments without Plaintiff's knowledge. The complaint also notes that Defendant has previously asserted the patents-in-suit against third parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-07-11 | Priority date for '639 and '500 Patents |
| 2017-08-24 | Plaintiff allegedly discloses designs to Defendant's founder |
| 2018-02-13 | Applications for '639 and '500 Patents filed |
| 2019-04-09 | '500 Patent Issued |
| 2019-06-04 | '639 Patent Issued |
| 2023-04-11 | Plaintiff allegedly becomes aware of the '639 Patent |
| 2025-03-31 | Plaintiff allegedly becomes aware of the '500 Patent |
| 2025-08-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D850,639 - "Massage Element"
- Issued: June 4, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests a need for specialized massage gun attachments to achieve different therapeutic outcomes (Compl. ¶15). Specifically, it alleges a need for an attachment that could mimic the "precision of a human thumb" to target "trigger points and the lower back" with deep, concentrated pressure (Compl. ¶¶16, 27).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a massage element, which the complaint identifies as Defendant's "Thumb Attachment" (Compl. ¶31). The design, depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a generally frustoconical body with a rounded, convex top surface intended for application to the body ('639 Patent, FIG. 1, 2).
- Technical Importance: The design's purported value lies in its shape, which allegedly allows for "deeper penetration and greater accuracy" than a standard ball attachment, making it suitable for pinpoint deep tissue therapy (Compl. ¶29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a massage element, as shown and described."
- As a design patent, the claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article shown in the drawings, rather than being composed of discrete textual elements. The scope is defined by the solid lines in the patent figures ('639 Patent, FIG. 1-4).
U.S. Design Patent No. D845,500 - "Massage Element"
- Issued: April 9, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges a need for an attachment that "mimics deep tissue techniques" and can deliver firm pressure for "flushing and scraping therapy for large muscles," such as shoulder blades (Compl. ¶¶4, 16).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a massage element, which the complaint identifies as Defendant's "Wedge Attachment" (Compl. ¶33). The design is an asymmetrical, wedge-like shape with a combination of flat and curved surfaces, tapering to a dull edge ('500 Patent, FIG. 1, 3).
- Technical Importance: The wedge-like shape is allegedly designed to provide firm, broad pressure suitable for scraping techniques over larger muscle groups, a distinct function from the pinpoint pressure of the "Thumb" attachment (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a massage element, as shown and described."
- Similar to the ’639 Patent, the claim covers the overall ornamental appearance of the wedge-shaped massage element as depicted in the patent's figures ('500 Patent, FIG. 1-11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The subject of the inventorship dispute are the designs embodied in Defendant's "Thumb Attachment" and "Wedge Attachment" products (Compl. ¶¶31, 33).
Functionality and Market Context
- These attachments are interchangeable tips for Defendant's line of "Theragun" percussion therapy devices (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The "Thumb" attachment is marketed as being "ideal for trigger points and the lower back" (Compl. ¶40). The "Wedge" attachment is advertised for delivering "firm pressure to target shoulder blades" (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint alleges these attachments are commercially significant, providing visual evidence that they are included with numerous Theragun models such as the "Theragun PRO Plus" and "Theragun Pro" (Compl. pp. 14-15). The "Theragun PRO Plus (sold with Thumb and Wedge Attachments)" marketing image shows both attachments included in the product bundle, suggesting their importance to the product line (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations
The core of the complaint is a dispute over inventorship, not infringement. The central allegation is that Plaintiff conceived of the patented designs and disclosed them to Defendant, who then filed patent applications naming different inventors. The following table summarizes the allegations comparing Plaintiff's purported contributions to the patented designs.
U.S. Patent D850,639 ("Thumb") Inventorship Allegations
| Patented Design Feature | Plaintiff's Alleged Contribution | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for the massage element as depicted in the patent figures. | Plaintiff alleges he invented the design, reduced it to practice through prototypes, CAD drawings, and written disclosures, and provided these materials to Defendant's founder on or around August 24-25, 2017. | ¶¶23, 82-83 | FIG. 1 |
U.S. Patent D845,500 ("Wedge") Inventorship Allegations
| Patented Design Feature | Plaintiff's Alleged Contribution | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for the massage element as depicted in the patent figures. | Plaintiff alleges he invented the design, reduced it to practice through prototypes, CAD drawings, and written disclosures, and provided these materials to Defendant's founder on or around August 24-25, 2017. | ¶¶23, 89-90 | FIG. 1 |
Supporting Visual Evidence: The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison table titled "The Thumb Attachment" and "The Wedge Attachment," which places images of "Dr. Mike's Design" (alleged prototypes) next to the corresponding patent figure and a photo of the final Therabody product (Compl. p. 8). This table is presented as direct visual evidence of the similarity between Plaintiff's alleged original designs and the patented designs.
Identified Points of Contention:
- Conception vs. Reduction to Practice: A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can establish that he conceived of the complete and final ornamental designs claimed in the patents. The dispute may turn on what evidence (e.g., dated drawings, prototypes, digital files) can be produced to corroborate his claim of conception and communication of that conception to the named inventors prior to the patents' effective filing date (Compl. ¶¶21, 23, 28).
- Contribution to Ornamental Design: For a design patent, inventorship requires contribution to the ornamental appearance, not just the functional concept. A potential issue is whether Plaintiff's alleged contribution was to the specific aesthetic shapes shown in the patents, as alleged through the disclosure of prototypes and CAD drawings (Compl. ¶23), or merely to the general idea of making thumb-shaped or wedge-shaped attachments.
- Sole vs. Joint Inventorship: Plaintiff seeks to be named the sole inventor, which requires showing that the currently named inventors made no inventive contribution to the conception of the claimed designs (Compl. ¶¶84, 91). The court may need to evaluate whether the named inventors contributed anything more than the "skill of the artisan" in translating Plaintiff's alleged conception into a final product.
V. Other Allegations
- Related State Law Claims: In addition to the federal patent law claim for correction of inventorship, the complaint alleges state law claims for Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, and Unjust Enrichment (Compl. ¶¶95-105). These claims are based on the allegation that Defendant broke an oral agreement to provide Plaintiff with inventorship credit and compensation in exchange for the right to use and patent his designs (Compl. ¶¶25, 96, 98).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central factual question will be one of corroboration: Can Plaintiff produce sufficient, non-self-serving evidence to prove that he conceived of the specific ornamental designs of the '639 and '500 patents and communicated that complete conception to Defendant before the patents' priority date?
- A key legal question will be one of contribution: Does the evidence demonstrate that Plaintiff's contribution was to the claimed ornamental appearance of the massage elements, as required for design patent inventorship, or was it limited to functional concepts that do not themselves confer inventorship status?
- Finally, the case will present a question of inventive stature: To be declared the sole inventor, Plaintiff must demonstrate not only his own conception but also that the named inventors made no material contribution to that conception, a determination that will require a detailed factual inquiry into the development process.