DCT
8:24-cv-00099
Hyper Ice v. Toloco Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Toloco Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00099, C.D. Cal., 01/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a California corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and intentionally markets and sells products to residents of the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage guns infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and features of such devices, including a specific quick-connect system for massage heads.
- Technical Context: The technology pertains to handheld, battery-powered percussive massage devices, a product category that has gained significant popularity in the consumer wellness and athletic recovery markets.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is part of a family tracing back to a 2013 provisional application, with the complaint noting its lineage as a continuation of prior applications that have since issued as patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Priority Date for ’482 Patent (Provisional App. 61/841,693) |
| 2018-01-01 (at least) | Plaintiff begins selling its own Hypervolt products covered by the ’482 Patent |
| 2024-01-02 | ’482 Patent Issued |
| 2024-01-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length" (Issued Jan. 2, 2024)
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 claims to solve these problems through a specific mechanical arrangement. It describes a handheld device with a motor that drives a piston in a reciprocating motion using a "Scotch yoke" mechanism, which is designed to reduce noise and wear (’482 Patent, col. 5:12-25). The design also incorporates features like a quick-connect system for attaching massage heads, which in one embodiment uses magnets to allow for easy swapping (’482 Patent, col. 6:47-68).
- Technical Importance: The claimed combination of a specific drive mechanism and a user-friendly head attachment system addresses practical usability issues (noise, ease of use) that could be barriers to adoption in the consumer market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- a housing;
- a piston with a proximal end, a distal end, and a "substantially cylindrical bore" at the distal end;
- a motor inside the housing connected to the piston to cause reciprocation;
- a drive mechanism that controls a "predetermined stroke length"; and
- a "quick-connect system" at the distal end of the piston for securing a massage head, which is configured to allow the head to be slid into the bore "while the piston reciprocates".
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but standard practice allows for amending such contentions.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses "all TOLOCO massage guns, including but not limited to Models EM26, X8, and TO-M63" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentalities are described as "battery-powered percussive massagers" that are offered for sale and sold by the Defendant through channels including Amazon.com and its own website (Compl. ¶¶4, 16). The complaint alleges these products incorporate the features recited in Claim 1 of the ’482 Patent (Compl. ¶16). 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 TOLOCO massage guns have a housing. | ¶16.a | 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 TOLOCO massage guns have a piston with a proximal and distal end, with the distal end having a substantially cylindrical bore. | ¶16.b | col. 10:1-3 |
| 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 TOLOCO massage guns have a motor that is at least partially within the housing and drives the piston to reciprocate. | ¶16.c | col. 3:41-44 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The TOLOCO massage guns have a drive mechanism controlling a predetermined stroke length for the piston. | ¶16.d | col. 11:26-29 |
| 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 TOLOCO massage guns 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. | ¶16.e | col. 6:47-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The final limitation of Claim 1 requires that the quick-connect system be configured to secure a massage head "while the piston reciprocates." A central question will be whether the accused TOLOCO products' attachment mechanism is robust enough to permit this "hot-swapping" functionality during operation, and what evidence the plaintiff can provide to demonstrate this capability.
- Scope Questions: The complaint provides a conclusory allegation that the accused products meet each limitation (Compl. ¶16). The actual mechanical structure of the accused "drive mechanism" and "quick-connect system" will be scrutinized to determine if they fall within the scope of the claim terms as construed by the court.
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 term appears to be a lynchpin of Claim 1, as it describes not just a structure but a specific, demanding function: attaching a head to a rapidly moving part. The infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused products are, in fact, "configured" to operate this way, even if users are not instructed to do so.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be read broadly to cover any mechanism that is structurally capable of securing a head during operation, regardless of the specific means used. The claim language itself is functional, focusing on what the system is "configured to" do rather than how it is built.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term's scope should be informed by the patent's preferred embodiment, which describes a specific magnetic system designed for this purpose (’482 Patent, col. 6:58-68). This might suggest the term requires a mechanism specifically designed and robust enough for this "hot-swapping" function, not one that might incidentally achieve it.
The Term: "drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length"
Context and Importance
Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent heavily details a specific "Scotch yoke" drive mechanism as a solution to noise and wear issues (’482 Patent, col. 5:12-25). Whether this term is limited to that mechanism or covers any standard crank-based system will be a key issue.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify a "Scotch yoke" or any particular structure, only a functional outcome ("controls a predetermined stroke length"). A party could argue this covers any mechanism that produces a consistent, non-variable stroke.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that, in the context of the problems solved by the patent (noise and wear), the term should be construed more narrowly to a class of mechanisms, like the disclosed Scotch yoke, that achieve this control in a particular way distinct from simpler, noisier prior art cranks.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A core issue will be one of functional capability: Does the "quick-connect system" in the accused TOLOCO products actually permit, by design and configuration, the attachment of a massage head "while the piston reciprocates," as required by the claim? Or is this a functional requirement the accused products do not meet?
- A second issue will be one of definitional scope: Will the claim term "drive mechanism" be given its broad, plain meaning, or will the court construe it more narrowly in light of the patent’s detailed description of a "Scotch yoke" as the solution to problems cited in the background?