DCT
8:24-cv-00098
Hyper Ice Inc v. Joicom Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: JOICOM CORPORATION dba RENPHO (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess, LLP; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00098, C.D. Cal., 04/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in California, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business 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 portable, battery-powered percussive massage devices, a product category popular for personal therapeutic use, muscle recovery, and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The asserted patent claims priority from a non-provisional application filed in 2014 and a provisional application filed in 2013, suggesting a long development and prosecution history for the patented technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 |
| 2024-01-02 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 |
| 2024-04-11 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 (“the ’482 Patent”), "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length," issued January 2, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior art vibrating massage 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. 1:28-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a handheld percussive massage device with an improved mechanical arrangement. The solution involves a drive mechanism (such as a Scotch yoke) to convert the motor's rotary motion into the piston's linear reciprocating motion (’482 Patent, col. 5:1-14). A key feature is a “quick-connect system” that allows for the rapid exchange of different massage heads, even while the device is operating, which is facilitated in an exemplary embodiment by using magnets to secure the head (’482 Patent, col. 6:47-56, 7:10-12).
- Technical Importance: The described design aims to improve user experience by addressing common points of failure and inconvenience in prior devices, specifically noise from mechanical slack and the difficulty of swapping attachments.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a housing;
- a piston with a substantially cylindrical bore at its distal end;
- a motor within the housing to cause the piston to reciprocate;
- a drive mechanism controlling a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- a quick-connect system at the piston's distal end, configured to secure a massaging head that is slid into the bore “while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed.”
- The complaint alleges infringement of “one or more claims of the ’482 Patent,” which may suggest an intent to assert other claims, including dependent claims, at a later stage (Compl. ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the RENPHO Power Massage Gun, RENPHO Active Massage Gun, RENPHO Active Thermacool Massage Gun, RENPHO REACH Massage Gun, RENPHO Q1 Massage Gun, RENPHO R4 (RF-GM169) Massage Gun, and other similar models (Compl. ¶1, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as “battery-powered percussive massagers” (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the internal operation of the accused products but alleges they possess features corresponding to each limitation of claim 1 (Compl. ¶17). It refers to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2-7) for detailed infringement analysis; however, these exhibits were not filed as part of the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶2, p. 8). The complaint alleges the products are sold directly to consumers via Defendant's website and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶1, ¶5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint refers to claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the pleading. The following table summarizes the narrative infringement theory for claim 1 as presented in the body of the complaint.
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing; | The accused products are alleged to include a housing. | ¶17(a) | col. 3:35-36 |
| a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore; | The accused products are alleged to contain a piston with a proximal end, a distal end, and a substantially cylindrical bore at the distal end. | ¶17(b) | col. 6:59-62 |
| 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 accused products are alleged to have a motor within the housing that is connected to and drives the piston to reciprocate. | ¶17(c) | col. 3:37-38 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; | The accused products are alleged to use a drive mechanism that controls the piston's stroke length. | ¶17(d) | col. 5:12-14 |
| a quick-connect system... 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 predetermined stroke length at the first speed. | The accused products are alleged to have a quick-connect system that secures a massaging head when it is slid into the piston's bore, even while the piston is reciprocating. | ¶17(e) | col. 7:10-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The final limitation of claim 1 requires the quick-connect system to be "configured to secure" a head "while the piston reciprocates." A central question for the court may be whether the term "configured to" requires that the system be intentionally designed and marketed for this specific function, or whether it is sufficient that the action is merely physically possible.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products' quick-connect systems function as claimed. The factual question will be whether the attachment mechanism in the accused RENPHO products actually permits a user to securely attach a massage head while the device is operating. The evidence for this functionality, which the complaint alleges exists, will be critical.
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 in the final element of claim 1 is highly specific and will likely be a focal point of the dispute. Infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused products' attachment mechanisms fall within the scope of this language. Practitioners may focus on this term because the "while reciprocating" capability appears to be a key point of novelty intended to distinguish the invention from prior art.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides support that may be argued as encompassing any system with this capability, stating that the design allows a head to "easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 7:10-12). This could suggest that the capability itself, rather than the specific mechanism, is what is protected.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s exemplary embodiment describes a specific magnetic system to achieve the quick-connect function (’482 Patent, col. 6:59-67). A party could argue that "configured to" implies a design that affirmatively and safely facilitates this action, and that a system without such specific features (e.g., a simple friction-fit) or one where such action would be discouraged is not "configured" in the manner required by the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶20). The pleading asserts that Defendant had "knowledge of the ’482 Patent and knew, or acted with willful, intentional, and conscious disregard" of a high likelihood of infringement, although it does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge (e.g., pre-suit notification).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional interpretation: does the term "configured to secure" a massage head "while the piston reciprocates," as recited in claim 1, require that an accused device be intentionally designed and promoted for this specific action, or is it sufficient that the action is simply physically possible? The court's construction of this phrase will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical capability: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused RENPHO massage guns actually perform the functions recited in the asserted claims? Specifically, proving that the accused head-attachment system is designed to operate securely while the piston is in motion will be a central factual hurdle.