DCT
8:24-cv-00390
Hyperice Inc v. Therabody Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00390, C.D. Cal., 02/23/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage devices infringes a patent related to the mechanical design of such devices, specifically concerning a quick-release connector for attaching massage heads.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology in the popular and competitive consumer market for personal electronic percussive therapy devices used for muscle treatment and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff initiated a prior lawsuit on the same patent against Defendant in the District of Delaware on January 3, 2024. That action was dismissed by Plaintiff, who states the dismissal was to promote judicial efficiency after Defendant filed its own suit against Plaintiff in the Central District of California. Plaintiff also notes it provided detailed claim charts to Defendant’s counsel prior to filing the current action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | ’482 Patent Priority Date (via Provisional Application) |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff begins developing and selling its "Hypervolt" product line (stated as "since at least 2018") |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Issues |
| 2024-01-03 | Plaintiff files initial infringement suit in the District of Delaware |
| 2024-02-16 | Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint in the Delaware litigation |
| 2024-02-23 | Complaint Filing Date (C.D. Cal.) |
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. (Compl. ¶10; ’482 Patent, (45), (54)).
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 discloses embodiments of a handheld percussive massage device designed to address these deficiencies. A central feature described is a "quick-connect system" that enables a user to easily attach and detach different massaging heads. This system can use magnets located in both the piston and the massage head shaft to create a secure but releasable connection, allowing for rapid swapping of heads to treat different muscles (’482 Patent, col. 6:47-col. 7:12; Fig. 6). The patent also describes other mechanical improvements, such as a "Scotch yoke" drive mechanism and an isolated cooling system to manage heat and noise (’482 Patent, col. 5:1-14, col. 6:10-46).
- Technical Importance: The invention’s focus on a quick-connect mechanism for massage heads addresses a key usability issue, allowing a user to customize a massage session for different body parts without needing to stop the device (’482 Patent, col. 6:52-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 34 of the ’482 Patent (Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 34 are:
- A housing;
- A piston in the housing with a proximal and distal end;
- A motor connected to the piston to cause reciprocation at a first speed;
- A drive mechanism controlling a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- A quick release connector at the piston's distal end, configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates, where the head has a "substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector."
- The complaint alleges infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as an alternative to literal infringement (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names the TheraFace PRO, TheraFace LED, Theragun PRO, Theragun Sense, Theragun Elite, Theragun Prime, Theragun Mini, and Theragun Relief (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶19). It alleges that these products are direct competitors to the Plaintiff's own "Hypervolt" line of devices, which Plaintiff asserts are covered by the ’482 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).
- The complaint states that several products are substantially equivalent for infringement analysis, such as the TheraFace PRO and TheraFace LED (Compl. ¶27, p.3). While the complaint references claim chart exhibits that detail the infringement theory, those exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶26, p.3). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 34) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing | The complaint alleges that Defendant's percussive massagers include a housing. | ¶19.a | col. 3:35-39 |
| a piston in the housing having a proximal end and a distal end | The complaint alleges that Defendant's percussive massagers include a piston within the housing. | ¶19.b | col. 5:3-6 |
| 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 that Defendant's percussive massagers include a motor configured to drive the piston. | ¶19.c | col. 4:56-59 |
| a drive mechanism between the motor and the piston that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The complaint alleges that Defendant's percussive massagers include a drive mechanism that controls the piston's stroke length. | ¶19.d | col. 2:41-43 |
| a quick release connector at the distal end of the piston, wherein the quick release connector is configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed, wherein the first massaging head has a substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector | The complaint alleges that Defendant's percussive massagers include a quick release connector at the piston's end and that the corresponding massage head has a substantially cylindrical pocket to receive that connector, allowing the head to be secured during operation. | ¶19.e | col. 6:56-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the attachment mechanism used in Defendant's products falls within the scope of the term "quick release connector" as used in the patent. The dispute may center on the specific structures required to meet this limitation versus a more functional interpretation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual detail on how the accused products operate. A key question for discovery will be to determine the actual structure of the accused products' piston-head interface and compare it to the claim requirements, particularly the presence and nature of a "substantially cylindrical pocket" on the massage head that is configured to "receive the quick release connector".
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "quick release connector"
Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the asserted claim and defines the core inventive concept of an easily swappable massage head. Its construction will be critical, as Defendant will likely argue that its products’ attachment mechanism is distinct from what is claimed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the function of the "quick-connect system" as allowing a user to "quickly switch massaging heads" and "easily slip into the opening... even while the piston... is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 6:53-54, col. 7:9-12). Plaintiff may argue the term should be construed functionally to cover any connector that achieves this quick-release capability.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only detailed embodiment of the connection is a magnetic one, comprising a "hollow-end bore 608" in the piston with a "magnet 606" and a corresponding "shaft 621" on the head with a "cylindrical pocket 622" containing a second "magnet 624" (’482 Patent, col. 6:56-67; Fig. 6). Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this specific two-magnet structural arrangement or one with analogous components.
The Term: "substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector"
Context and Importance: This term defines the required structure on the massage head itself. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused massage heads possess a feature that meets this definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" suggests that geometric perfection is not required. Plaintiff may argue that any recess on the massage head's attachment point that is generally cylindrical and accepts the piston's connecting end satisfies the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures show a distinct "cylindrical pocket 622" at the end of the massage head shaft, which serves the specific purpose of housing "magnet 624" (’482 Patent, col. 6:62-65; Fig. 6). Defendant may argue that the term requires not just a shaped void, but a structure configured as part of a corresponding connector pair, potentially one that houses a component like a magnet.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’482 Patent "by no later than January 3, 2024," the date Plaintiff filed the initial Delaware litigation. The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff provided detailed claim charts to Defendant's counsel, reinforcing the claim of actual knowledge, and that Defendant's infringing conduct continued thereafter (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 15, 22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "quick release connector", as described in the context of a specific magnetic embodiment in the ’482 patent, be construed broadly enough to read on the attachment mechanisms used in Defendant’s various Theragun and TheraFace products?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: once the claim terms are construed, does the physical interface between the piston and the massage head in the accused products actually contain a "substantially cylindrical pocket" on the head that is designed to "receive" the connector from the piston, as required by Claim 34, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their mechanical structure and operation?