DCT
8:24-cv-02034
Hyper Ice Inc v. Therabody Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-02034, C.D. Cal., 10/02/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the Central District of California and maintains a regular and established place of business in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of personal therapeutic massage devices infringes a patent directed to treatment devices capable of delivering multiple, independently operable energy types to a user's skin.
- Technical Context: The technology occupies the personal wellness and athletic recovery market, where multi-modal devices offering combined percussive, thermal, and other therapies are increasingly common.
- Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of September 19, 2024, the date the original complaint in this action was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-10-23 | ’174 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-07-16 | ’174 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-09-19 | Date of Alleged Knowledge by Defendant |
| 2024-09-19 | Original Complaint Filing Date |
| 2024-10-02 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,036,174 - "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,036,174, "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems," issued July 16, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the negative health effects of prolonged screen use, such as eyestrain, and proposes that using non-optical nerves, such as those associated with the skin, presents an alternative for person-to-computer communication (’174 Patent, col. 1:32-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is described as a "treatment device" comprising a body with a power source and multiple "energy generator elements." These elements are independently operable to convert electricity into different energy types (e.g., impact, heat, electrical shock) and direct them toward an area of a user's skin, often from a handheld device (’174 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-29). The device is intended to communicate information or provide treatment through these varied physical stimuli.
- Technical Importance: The patent frames the technical approach as a way to leverage the body's non-visual sensory capabilities to overcome deficiencies in screen-based communication (’174 Patent, col. 1:50-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (’174 Patent, Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of independent claim 17 are:
- A treatment device with a body containing a power source and a processing unit.
- The body has a skin-contacting surface that can be maintained against a user's skin by the user gripping the body.
- The device includes a first 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 is an "impact generator element" with a tissue contact surface that is "linearly actuatable along an axis" to physically move the skin.
- The processing unit is operable to output an optical signal on a user-observable display, with the output corresponding to the control signal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The TheraFace PRO, The Complete TheraFace Bundle (which includes the TheraFace PRO with TheraFace Hot and Cold Rings), the Theragun PRO Plus, and the Theragun Prime Plus (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as "battery-powered devices" (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint alleges that these products incorporate the features recited in claim 17, including a body, power source, processing unit, an impact generator, a second distinct energy generator, and a display (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- The complaint refers to Exhibits 2-5 as claim charts for the Accused Products; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused functionalities beyond alleging that they "include the following claim limitations" (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’174 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a body provided with a power source and a processing unit configured to receive input data and generate a control signal based on the input data, the body including a skin contacting surface maintainable against skin of a user by a force applied by a hand of the user when gripping the body; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are battery-powered devices with a body, power source, and processing unit that are gripped by a user's hand during operation. | ¶17a | col. 41:29-35 |
| b. a first energy generator element and a second energy generator element coupled to the body, the first and second energy generator elements being independently operable to convert electricity from the power source into a first energy type and a second energy type, respectively, and direct the first and second energy types toward an area of skin, | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have at least two independently operable energy generators that convert electricity into different energy types directed at the user's skin. | ¶17b | col. 40:20-25 |
| the first energy generator element including an impact generator element having a tissue contact surface that is linearly actuatable along an axis to contact and cause corresponding physical movement of the area of skin; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain an impact generator element that linearly actuates to cause physical movement of the skin. | ¶17b | col. 18:1-8 |
| c. wherein the processing unit is operable to output an optical signal on a display that is observable by eyes of the user, the output corresponding to the control signal. | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a processing unit that outputs an optical signal on a display, with the signal corresponding to the device's control signal. | ¶17c | col. 4:31-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent is titled "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems" and its background is exclusively focused on providing an alternative to screen-based communication. The Accused Products are marketed as therapeutic massagers. This raises the question of whether a "treatment device" (as claimed) will be interpreted in the broader context of the specification to be limited to devices for "communication," or if the term will be given its plain meaning, which would cover therapeutic devices.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual support for how the Accused Products meet each limitation. This raises several evidentiary questions: (1) What specific component of each Accused Product constitutes the "second energy generator element," and what evidence demonstrates it is "independently operable" from the impact generator? (2) What is the "optical signal" on the Accused Products' displays, and what proof will be offered that it "correspond[s] to the control signal" for the energy generators, rather than serving a more general function like indicating power status or battery life?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "treatment device"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the scope of the patent. A broad construction would favor the Plaintiff by covering a wide range of therapeutic products. A narrow construction, limited by the patent's "communication"-focused disclosure, would favor the Defendant.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The asserted claim itself, as well as the patent's abstract, explicitly use the term "treatment device" ('174 Patent, col. 42:12; Abstract). The specification also describes energies like heat and impact, which have well-known therapeutic applications (e.g., ’174 Patent, col. 3:20-24).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title is "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems," and its entire background section frames the invention as a solution to the problem of "person-to-computer communication" via excessive screen time ('174 Patent, Title; col. 1:32-56). A court may be asked to read "treatment" in light of this pervasive communication context.
- The Term: "independently operable"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether having physically separate, swappable attachments (like the accused "Hot and Cold Rings") meets the claim, versus requiring two generators capable of simultaneous or coordinated operation within the same device housing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the elements be operable to convert electricity into different energy types, which could be interpreted to mean they can be selected and used one at a time, not necessarily at the same time ('174 Patent, col. 42:20-23).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses combining different energies, for example, outputting "impact energy 32A in response to a baseline measure, and output[ting] with a combination of impact energy 32A and heat energy 32B if the measure changes" ('174 Patent, col. 23:10-14). This could support an argument that "independently operable" implies the capability for coordinated or simultaneous use.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶19). The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the ’174 Patent "by no later than September 19, 2024," the date the original lawsuit was filed (Compl. ¶13). This constitutes an allegation of post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "treatment device," which appears in a patent specification almost entirely dedicated to solving problems with screen-based "communication," be construed to cover mass-market therapeutic massagers whose primary purpose is muscle recovery?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement proof: in the absence of detailed factual allegations or claim charts in the complaint, what evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the Accused Products meet each limitation of claim 17, particularly the requirements for a "second energy generator element" that is "independently operable" and an "optical signal" that "correspond[s] to the control signal"?
- A central question of claim construction will be whether "independently operable" requires that the two energy generators be capable of simultaneous or coordinated function, or if the limitation is met by devices that use mutually exclusive, swappable attachments for different energy types.