Hyper Ice Inc v. Cotsoco

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cotsoco (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
• Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00291, C.D. Cal., 02/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the District and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• 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.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld, battery-powered percussive massage devices used for deep muscle stimulation, pain relief, and athletic recovery.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent issued less than six weeks before the complaint was filed. The patent claims priority to a provisional application filed over a decade prior, in 2013. Plaintiff also alleges its own Hypervolt line of massagers, sold since at least 2018, are covered by the patent.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482, "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length," issued January 2, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art massaging devices were often "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 patent describes a handheld percussive massager designed to be more robust and user-friendly. The invention converts a motor's rotary motion into a linear, reciprocating motion for a piston that holds an interchangeable massage head ('482 Patent, col. 5:1-14). A central feature is a "quick-connect system" that includes a bore at the end of the piston, which is specifically configured to allow a user to secure a massage head by sliding it into the bore even while the piston is actively moving ('482 Patent, col. 6:47-56; col. 7:10-13).
• Technical Importance: This design approach aims to improve the user experience by simplifying the process of changing massage heads and potentially reducing noise and wear associated with certain drive mechanisms.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • a housing;
  • a piston with a proximal end, a distal end, and a substantially cylindrical bore at the distal end;
  • a motor within the housing, operatively connected to the piston to cause it to reciprocate at a first speed;
  • a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
  • a quick-connect system, comprising the piston's distal end and a massage head, configured to secure the head by sliding it into the bore while the piston reciprocates.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 1," suggesting the possibility that other claims may be asserted later (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names "all Cotsoco massage guns, including but not limited to the Mini Massage Gun, the 30 Speed Massage Gun, the Deep Tissue 30 Speed Massage Gun, and the 6 Speed Rechargeable Massage Gun" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers throughout the United States via Amazon.com and Defendant's website, cotsoco.us (Compl. ¶5).
• The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products beyond alleging that they incorporate the elements of the asserted claim.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'482 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely be whether the accused products' attachment mechanism is, in fact, "configured to" permit a massage head to be "slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates." The complaint makes this allegation without providing evidence of the specific design or instructions for use that would support this functionality. The physical possibility of performing this action versus the system being specifically designed for it may become a central point of contention.
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length" may be contested. The question may arise whether the accused products' mechanism actively "controls" the stroke length, or if the length is merely an inherent, uncontrolled property of its geometry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "quick-connect system ... configured to secure the first massaging head ... being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the most specific and potentially novel element of Claim 1. The outcome of the infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused products are found to meet this precise functional requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it moves beyond a static connection to describe a dynamic assembly capability.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the general purpose of the system as allowing "a user to quickly switch massaging heads" ('482 Patent, col. 6:53-54), which a party could argue supports a broad interpretation of any system that facilitates easy changes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses that a rounded or tapered end on the massage head "allow[s] it to easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" ('482 Patent, col. 7:10-13). A party could argue that the term "configured to" requires a design that specifically contemplates and enables this dynamic insertion, as shown in the patent's detailed description, rather than one where it is merely possible by happenstance. The embodiment shown uses magnets to achieve the connection ('482 Patent, col. 6:60-67).

• The Term: "drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to how the device operates. The dispute will likely focus on the meaning of "controls."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is not limited to a specific type of mechanism. A party could argue any mechanism that results in a fixed, repeatable stroke length meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific embodiment where "an offset between the flywheel axis and an axis of the crank pin controls the predetermined stroke length of the piston" ('482 Patent, col. 11:30-33). A party could argue that "controls" implies an affirmative design choice, as exemplified by the offset crank pin, rather than just an incidental property of a simpler mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

• The complaint does not contain counts for 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 central questions:

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of demonstrated functionality: Can Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused Cotsoco massage guns are, in fact, "configured to" allow a user to attach a massage head by sliding it into the piston's bore while the device is operating? The complaint's bare allegation will require factual support regarding the design and intended use of the accused products.

2. A core issue will be one of claim construction: How the court construes the term "configured to" will be critical. Does the term require that the system was specifically designed for dynamic attachment, as the patent's detailed description suggests, or is it sufficient that such an action is merely physically possible, regardless of the designer's intent or the product's instructions?