DCT

8:24-cv-01349

Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:24-cv-01349, C.D. Cal., 06/19/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant has its principal place of business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, sellers of percussive massage guns, seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against Defendant's patent after Defendant filed an infringement complaint with Amazon, leading to the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technology of handheld electronic percussive massage devices, a significant segment of the consumer personal wellness and recovery market.
  • Key Procedural History: The dispute was triggered by Defendant's infringement report to Amazon.com on or around June 18, 2024, which resulted in the de-listing of Plaintiffs' products. This action by Plaintiffs is a direct response, seeking a court order to resume sales.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1991-12-05 Earliest filing date for Meyer prior art reference
1999-12-28 Earliest filing date for Pivaroff prior art reference
2008-05-02 Application date for Rhoades prior art reference
2013-07-01 Priority Date for ’082 Patent
2015-08-27 Application date for Dagan prior art reference
2024-03-26 ’082 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-18 Defendant allegedly reports infringement to Amazon.com
2024-06-19 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 - Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length, Issued March 26, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that many prior art vibrating massage devices are "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’082 Patent, col. 2:28-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes embodiments of a handheld massager designed to be more robust and user-friendly. Key disclosed features include a "Scotch yoke" drive mechanism for converting the motor's rotary motion into linear reciprocation of the piston, which can reduce noise and wear (Compl. ¶22; ’082 Patent, col. 5:14-18). The patent also describes a cooling system with a fan and heat sink isolated in a separate cavity to prevent dust and lint accumulation, and a quick-connect system, potentially using magnets, for easily swapping massage heads (’082 Patent, col. 6:31-46, 6:47-67).
  • Technical Importance: The described innovations aim to improve the durability, thermal management, and operational acoustics of percussive massagers, enhancing the overall user experience in the personal wellness device market (’082 Patent, col. 2:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses on independent claims 1 and 18.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): A percussive massager comprising:
    • a housing;
    • a piston with a bore at its distal end;
    • a motor to reciprocate the piston at a first speed;
    • a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
    • a quick-connect system configured to allow a massaging head to be inserted into or removed from the piston's bore "while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed."
  • Independent Claim 18 (Method): A method of assembling a percussive massager comprising the steps of:
    • operatively connecting a motor to a piston;
    • providing a drive mechanism to control a predetermined stroke length; and
    • providing a quick-connect system configured to allow a massaging head to be inserted or removed "while the piston reciprocates."
  • The complaint notes that dependent claims 2-17 are also at issue (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Massage Guns" sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under the brand TOLOCO and various storefront names such as "Eaglewood Trading" and "easy-fit" (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 8). Specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) are identified, including B089KJTW4V (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the products as percussive massage guns sold in the United States via the Amazon marketplace, which constitutes Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel" (Compl. ¶14). While detailed technical specifications of the accused products are not provided, the complaint asserts they have achieved a high lifetime rating of 4.9 out of 5 stars, suggesting a degree of commercial success (Compl. ¶6). The core of the non-infringement argument is that these products lack certain specific functionalities required by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a declaratory judgment action, the following summarizes the Plaintiffs' allegations of non-infringement.

’082 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston Plaintiffs allege their massage guns do not have a mechanism that allows for the adjustment of the piston's stroke length after manufacturing and before operation. ¶21 col. 10:4-5
a quick-connect system ... configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed Plaintiffs allege their massage guns do not possess such a quick-connect system and that operating a device in this manner would lead to motor overload and create serious safety risks. ¶22 col. 9:64-10:11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of what "configured to" means in the context of claim 1. Does it require that the device be specifically designed for the insertion or removal of a head during operation as an intended function, as Plaintiffs' safety argument implies (Compl. ¶23), or does it merely mean the physical structure makes such an action possible, regardless of intent or safety?
    • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be the actual design of the accused products' drive mechanism. The complaint asserts the mechanism does not permit adjustment of the piston's stroke length (Compl. ¶21), which will require evidentiary support comparing the accused product's structure to the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a quick-connect system [...] configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is a primary basis for Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument. The construction of "configured to" in combination with the functional language "while the piston reciprocates" will be critical to determining infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader construction might argue that "configured to" only requires that the structure be capable of allowing this action. The patent's description of a magnetic quick-connect system could be argued to inherently possess this capability, regardless of whether it is a recommended user action (’082 Patent, col. 6:47-67, FIG. 6).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction may point to specific language in the specification stating that the end of the massage head is shaped "to allow it to easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" (’082 Patent, col. 7:10-13). This suggests a specific design for this purpose, which Plaintiffs claim their products lack. Plaintiffs' argument that such an action would be unsafe could also be used to argue against a construction that covers a dangerous implementation (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23).

The Term: "a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston"

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiffs' second non-infringement argument centers on this term, which they contend requires a user-adjustable stroke length (Compl. ¶21).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party advocating for a broader meaning could argue that "controls a predetermined stroke length" simply means the mechanism dictates a fixed, set length, not necessarily a variable one. Claim 1 does not explicitly use the word "variable" or "adjustable" in this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiffs argue this term should be construed to require a "cam or cam-like adjustment mechanism" (Compl. ¶21). They could point to the patent's title ("Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length") and the detailed description and figures of a "lost motion system" for adjusting stroke length (’082 Patent, FIG. 7, col. 7:22-67) as evidence that "controls" in this context implies the ability to select or change the stroke length.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity: The complaint presents a detailed invalidity challenge to claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, alleging obviousness over combinations of prior art, including Pivaroff (U.S. Pat. 6,682,496), Meyer (U.S. Pat. 5,134,777), Rhoades (U.S. Pub. 2008/0243039), and Dagan (U.S. Pub. 2015/0374576) (Compl. ¶¶ 29-34). The complaint provides figures from these references to support its theory. For example, it includes figures from Pivaroff showing a basic massager apparatus (Compl. p. 13), and a figure from Meyer disclosing an adjustable stroke mechanism (Compl. p. 14). The complaint also asserts invalidity under § 112, arguing claim 1 improperly combines a product and a method in a single claim (Compl. ¶35).
  • Unfair Competition: Plaintiffs bring a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law, alleging that Defendant's "false complaints to Amazon" constitute an unlawful and unfair business practice (Compl. ¶¶ 39-41).
  • Exceptional Case: Plaintiffs request that the case be found exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, seeking attorney fees and enhanced damages based on the "willful and exceptional nature of the case" stemming from Defendant's allegedly improper enforcement actions (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ D-E).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and operational capability: Does the claim limitation "configured to have... [a head] inserted or removed... while the piston reciprocates" require that the device be specifically and safely designed for this as an intended user function, or does it simply describe a structural possibility? The resolution will likely depend on how the court construes "configured to" in light of the patent's specification and the Plaintiffs' safety-based arguments.
  • A key validity question will be one of obviousness: The complaint provides a detailed roadmap for combining multiple prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. The court will need to determine whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating a massager with the claimed features, particularly the "hot-swappable" quick-connect functionality.
  • A central commercial issue will be the propriety of pre-litigation enforcement: Beyond the patent questions, the case raises the issue of whether Defendant's use of Amazon's infringement reporting system was a legitimate act of patent enforcement or an unlawful business practice under state law, the answer to which will depend on the ultimate findings of infringement and validity.