Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co Ltd v. Hyper Ice Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and DataFeel, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP
• Case Identification: 8:24-cv-02034, C.D. Cal., 03/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s percussive massage devices and wearable smart goggle products infringe patents related to multi-modal therapeutic and communication devices.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer wellness and athletic recovery market, involving handheld and wearable devices that apply various physical energies to a user's body.
• Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint is part of a consolidated action. The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the ’174 Patent as of September 19, 2024, through the filing of a prior action, and of the ’161 Patent as of December 11, 2024, via a notice letter that included a claim chart.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-10-23	Earliest Priority Date for '174 and '161 Patents
2024-07-16	U.S. Patent No. 12,036,174 Issued
2024-09-19	Initial action filed regarding '174 Patent
2024-09-24	U.S. Patent No. 12,097,161 Issued
2024-12-11	Notice of infringement provided for '161 Patent
2025-03-12	Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,036,174 - "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the health problems associated with excessive computer screen time, such as eyestrain, and notes the need for alternative, non-optical means for person-to-computer communication to solve these issues (’174 Patent, col. 1:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a treatment device that delivers information or therapy through the skin using multiple, distinct energy types. The patent describes a body, typically handheld, containing a power source, a processing unit, and a plurality of "energy generator elements" that can independently convert electricity into different energies (e.g., impact, heat, pressure) and direct them toward the user’s skin (’174 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:3-14). Figure 3A illustrates an embodiment where different generator elements are integrated into a single head (’174 Patent, FIG. 3A).
• Technical Importance: The technology enables a single device to provide multi-modal sensory input or therapy, which may allow for more nuanced communication or treatment by stimulating different types of nerve receptors in the skin (’174 Patent, col. 40:1-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 17 (Compl. ¶20).
• The essential elements of Claim 17 are:
  • A treatment device comprising a body with a power source, a processing unit, and a skin contacting surface maintainable against the skin by a user gripping the body.
  • A first energy generator element and a second energy generator element, which are independently operable to convert electricity into a first and second energy type, respectively.
  • The first energy generator element includes an impact generator with a linearly actuatable tissue contact surface.
  • The processing unit is operable to output an optical signal on a user-observable display, with the output corresponding to the control signal.

U.S. Patent No. 12,097,161 - "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’174 Patent, the background addresses health issues stemming from excessive screen time and the need for alternative communication methods (’161 Patent, col. 1:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention adapts the multi-modal energy concept into a wearable device specifically designed to be worn on a user's head. It comprises a body with a flexible material layer, a power source, and an attachment band to secure it. The device includes multiple, independently operable energy generators that can transmit a plurality of different energy types to the user's skin (’161 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:1-17).
• Technical Importance: This innovation provides a hands-free, head-mounted platform for multi-sensory communication or therapy, expanding potential applications from handheld therapeutic tools to wearable wellness or sensory augmentation devices (’161 Patent, col. 22:1-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • A wearable device comprising a body with a flexible material layer, conformable about a user's head, and having a power source.
  • An attachment element including a band to maintain the body about the user's head.
  • A plurality of energy generators that are independently operable to convert electricity into a plurality of different energy types transmittable to the user's skin.
  • At least one of the energy generators is disposed at least partially within the flexible material layer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses two categories of products:
  • The '174 Accused Products are identified as the TheraFace PRO, The Complete TheraFace Bundle (including TheraFace Hot and Cold Rings), the Theragun PRO Plus, and the Theragun Prime Plus (Compl. ¶11).
  • The '161 Accused Products are identified as the Therabody SmartGoggles products (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the '174 Accused Products are battery-powered, handheld devices that embody the limitations of Claim 17, including a body with a processor, a skin-contacting surface, an impact generator, a second distinct energy generator, and a display (Compl. ¶19-20).
• The complaint alleges the '161 Accused Products are battery-powered, wearable devices that embody the limitations of Claim 1, including a flexible, head-conformable body, an attachment band, and a plurality of independently operable energy generators (Compl. ¶26).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

• '174 Patent Infringement Allegations (Prose Summary):
  The complaint alleges that the '174 Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 17 (Compl. ¶20). The narrative theory asserts these products are handheld devices with a body, power source, and processor, maintained against the skin by the user's grip. The infringement allegation appears to rely on the combination of the device's standard percussive head (as the "impact generator element") and attachments such as the "TheraFace Hot and Cold Rings" (as the "second energy generator element") to meet the requirement for two independently operable generators. The complaint further alleges the products have a display that outputs an optical signal corresponding to a control signal (Compl. ¶19-20).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a detachable component, such as a heating or cooling ring, qualifies as a second "energy generator element coupled to the body" under the claim's language, particularly when the patent's own figures depict multiple generator types integrated into a single component (’174 Patent, FIG. 3A).
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused products' displays output an "optical signal" that "correspond[s] to the control signal" in the manner required by the claim. For example, the court may examine whether a simple power or speed indicator light meets this limitation as it is defined in the patent's specification.

• '161 Patent Infringement Allegations (Prose Summary):
  The complaint alleges that the '161 Accused Products (Therabody SmartGoggles) directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’161 Patent (Compl. ¶26). The narrative theory is that the SmartGoggles are a wearable device with a flexible body held to the user's head with a band. The core of the allegation is that the device contains a "plurality of energy generators" capable of producing "a plurality of different energy types," with at least one of these generators being situated within the device's flexible layer (Compl. ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the meaning of "a plurality of different energy types." The court will need to determine if different settings of a single modality (e.g., various vibration patterns) constitute "different energy types," or if the term requires distinct physical modalities (e.g., vibration and heat).
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the accused SmartGoggles are constructed with at least one energy generator "disposed at least partially within the flexible material layer," as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term ('174 Patent, Claim 17): "energy generator element"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’174 patent requires the accused products to have at least two such elements. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether separate, attachable modules (like heating/cooling rings) can be combined with an integrated percussive motor to meet the claim limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a variety of distinct energy generator types, including impact, heat, shock, and pressure, suggesting the inventor contemplated a device capable of multiple, separable functions (’174 Patent, col. 17:35-18:65).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s primary embodiment in Figure 3A illustrates multiple generator types (impact, heat, shock, pressure) physically integrated into a single, compact unit (’174 Patent, FIG. 3A). This could support an interpretation that the claimed "elements" must be part of a single, integrated structure rather than separate, attachable components.

• Term ('161 Patent, Claim 1): "a plurality of different energy types"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because if the accused SmartGoggles are found to produce only one "type" of energy (e.g., vibration), the infringement claim may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate the evidence required to prove infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification, through its incorporated parent, discloses multiple distinct physical modalities as "energy types," such as impact, heat, shock, and pressure (’161 Patent, col. 1:15-24, incorporating disclosures of ’174 Patent). A plaintiff may argue that this list is exemplary, not exhaustive, and that different patterns or frequencies of vibration could also be considered different "types."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the specification's use of physically distinct phenomena (impact, heat, etc.) to illustrate "energy types" implies that the term is limited to different physical modalities. Under this view, different settings of a single modality (e.g., varied vibration patterns) would not qualify as "different energy types."

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement:
  • The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’174 Patent based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent as of September 19, 2024, the filing date of a prior action (Compl. ¶12, ¶23).
  • Willful infringement of the ’161 Patent is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge as of December 11, 2024, when Plaintiffs allegedly provided Defendant with notice and a claim chart for the patent (Compl. ¶17, ¶29).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "energy generator element" from the ’174 Patent, which the specification illustrates as part of an integrated head, be construed to cover separate, attachable accessories like the accused product's "Hot and Cold Rings"?
• A central question of claim construction and fact for the ’161 Patent will be one of technological classification: do the accused SmartGoggles' functions constitute a "plurality of different energy types" as required by the claim, or do they represent different settings of a single energy type?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the physical construction of the accused products align with the specific structural and functional limitations of the asserted claims, such as the relationship between the "optical signal" and "control signal" in the ’174 Patent and the placement of an energy generator "within the flexible material layer" in the ’161 Patent?