DCT
8:24-cv-01394
Bob Brad LLC v. Hyper Ice Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bob and Brad, LLC (Minnesota); Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.; Guangzhou Yunri Shangmao Co., Ltd.; Huizhou Anchi Technology Co., Ltd.; and Shenzhen Laige Technology Co., Ltd. (all of China)
- Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Gary F. Wang; Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC; Martin J. Foley, a PLC
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-01394, C.D. Cal., 09/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because both Defendant entities reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their massage gun products do not infringe, and that the claims are invalid, for a patent owned by Defendants related to percussive massage devices with variable stroke length.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld percussive massage devices, a product category focused on deep muscle stimulation for therapeutic and recovery purposes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this dispute follows prior events, including a separate lawsuit filed by Defendants against Plaintiff B&B on a related patent (the ’482 Patent) and Defendants' use of the patent-in-suit (the ’082 Patent) in an Amazon infringement reporting procedure, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiffs' products. Plaintiffs allege Defendants are using the '082 patent for Amazon enforcement to circumvent a rule that prevents using a patent in that process while it is the subject of active district court litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 |
| 2022-02-25 | Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 (related patent) |
| 2023-11-20 | Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 issues |
| 2024-01-03 | Defendants file complaint against B&B asserting the '482 Patent |
| 2024-01-05 | Defendants submit infringement report to Amazon under the '482 Patent |
| 2024-03-26 | U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 issues |
| 2024-06-19 | Defendants submit infringement report to Amazon under the '082 Patent |
| 2024-09-29 | First Amended Declaratory Judgment Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 - Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art vibrating massage devices suffer from deficiencies, including being "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" ('082 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massager designed for improved usability. The abstract and detailed description disclose a device with a housing, a motor, a piston, and a drive mechanism (such as a Scotch yoke) to create a reciprocating motion ('082 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-14). A key feature is a "quick-connect system" that allows a user to attach and detach different massaging heads, potentially while the device is still operating ('082 Patent, col. 6:47-65; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide a more robust, convenient, and less noisy massage device by constraining the piston's movement and enabling rapid changes of applicator heads ('082 Patent, col. 5:6-14, col. 6:52-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 18 as the only independent claims of the '082 Patent (Compl. ¶31). Plaintiffs reserve the right to address dependent claims.
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim) Essential Elements:
- a housing;
- a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a bore;
- a motor operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston... configured to cause the piston 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 distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, wherein the quick-connect system is 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.
- Independent Claim 18 (Method Claim) Essential Elements:
- operatively connecting a motor to a proximal end of a piston... configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed...;
- providing a drive mechanism configured to control a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- providing a quick-connect system... wherein a proximal end of the first massaging head is configured to be inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"Various Bob and Brad branded massage gun products" sold on Amazon.com via the "Bob and Brad US," "Bob and Brad Direct," and "Bob and Brad Fitness" storefronts (collectively, the "Accused Massage Guns") (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 53).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint, a declaratory judgment action, focuses on features the Accused Massage Guns allegedly lack. It asserts the products do not include "a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston" (Compl. ¶54). It further asserts the products do not have "a quick-connect system at a distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, as required by all of the '082 claims" (Compl. ¶55). The complaint notes that Amazon is the "primary sales platform" for these products (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiffs' stated reasons for why the Accused Massage Guns do not meet certain limitations of the '082 Patent's independent claims.
’082 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| 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 the Accused Massage Guns do not include this feature. | ¶54 | 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 the Accused Massage Guns do not include a quick-connect system as required by the claims. | ¶55 | col. 10:6-11 |
’082 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations (Claim 18)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a drive mechanism configured to control a predetermined stroke length of the piston | Plaintiffs allege the Accused Massage Guns do not provide this feature. | ¶54 | col. 11:10-11 |
| providing a quick-connect system ... wherein a proximal end of the first massaging head is configured to be inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed | Plaintiffs allege the Accused Massage Guns do not provide a quick-connect system as required by the claims. | ¶55 | col. 11:12-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will concern the proper construction of the claim terms "drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length" and "quick-connect system." The question arises whether the functional language requiring the quick-connect system to operate "while the piston reciprocates" imposes a specific structural or operational constraint that the accused devices do not meet.
- Technical Questions: The primary factual question is whether the mechanism in the Accused Massage Guns functions in a way that "controls a predetermined stroke length" as that phrase is understood in the patent. A second factual question is whether the head attachment mechanism on the accused devices meets all the functional and structural requirements of the claimed "quick-connect system."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims and is a basis for Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶¶ 32-34, 54). Its construction will be critical to determining whether the drive system used in the Accused Massage Guns falls within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a single type of mechanism, which may support an interpretation covering any mechanism that achieves the function of controlling a set stroke length.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "Scotch yoke" as the mechanism for converting rotary to linear motion (e.g., '082 Patent, col. 5:14). A party could argue that this specific embodiment should inform, and potentially narrow, the meaning of the more general claim term.
The Term: "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 functional limitation is also present in both independent claims and is the second pillar of the non-infringement case (Compl. ¶¶ 35-37, 55). Practitioners may focus on this term because the ability to swap heads "while the piston reciprocates" appears to be a highly specific and potentially distinguishing feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system allowing for tool-less, rapid head changes meets the general purpose of a "quick-connect system."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a specific magnetic connection system designed to achieve this functionality ('082 Patent, col. 6:47-col. 7:13; Figs. 6-6B). The explicit functional requirement ("while the piston reciprocates") provides strong evidence that the term requires more than just a simple friction-fit or screw-on attachment, and may be limited to systems that can safely and effectively perform this dynamic-swapping function.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Not applicable, as this is a declaratory judgment complaint filed by the accused infringer.
- Willful Infringement: Not applicable.
- Unfair Competition: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition under California law (Compl. ¶¶ 73-84). The basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendants strategically used the '082 Patent for an "expedited Amazon enforcement action" while simultaneously litigating a "nearly identical" patent (the '482 Patent) in district court, allegedly to circumvent Amazon's rule against enforcing patents that are the subject of federal litigation and to effectively gain an injunction without a court order (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 82).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: How will the court define the functional requirements of the claimed "drive mechanism" and "quick-connect system"? Specifically, does the language "while the piston reciprocates" impart a narrow, functional limit that distinguishes the patented invention from the head-attachment mechanisms on the accused products?
- The case will likely turn on a key evidentiary question of technical operation: Assuming a construction, do the accused "Bob and Brad" massage guns, in fact, operate in the manner required by the claims? This will necessitate a direct technical comparison of the products' drive and attachment systems against the claim language.
- A significant secondary question addresses business practices: Does Defendants' alleged strategy of litigating one patent in court while using a closely related patent for enforcement on Amazon's platform constitute an "unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business act or practice" under California law?