Hyperice Inc v. MerchSource LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: MerchSource, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP
• Case Identification: 8:24-cv-02092, C.D. Cal., 09/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s percussion massager infringes a patent related to handheld treatment devices capable of delivering multiple, independently operable energy types to a user's skin.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves handheld therapeutic devices that combine percussive massage with other forms of energy, such as thermal therapy, and provide visual feedback to the user.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit was assigned to DataFeel Inc., and that Plaintiff Hyper Ice, Inc. is an exclusive licensee with the right to enforce the patent. The patent itself claims priority back to a 2017 provisional application and is a continuation of a series of prior applications.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-10-23	'174 Patent Priority Date
2024-07-16	'174 Patent Issue Date
2024-09-25	Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of '174 Patent
2024-09-26	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 excessive screen time, such as eyestrain, and notes a need for alternative methods of person-to-computer communication that do not rely on vision (’174 Patent, col. 1:32-55). It proposes leveraging other nerves, such as those associated with the skin, for this purpose (’174 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is described as a device, which can be a "treatment device" or "communication device," that is held against a user's skin (’174 Patent, Abstract). It contains a plurality of "energy generator elements" which can independently convert electricity into different types of energy (e.g., impact, heat, pressure) and transmit them to the user's skin to convey information (’174 Patent, col. 1:60-col. 2:5). For example, the device can output patterned energy signals onto the skin, as illustrated in Figure 1A, to communicate symbols or data without requiring the user to look at a screen (’174 Patent, Fig. 1A; col. 14:35-46).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a tactile communication channel to supplement or replace visual information displays, thereby reducing reliance on screens (’174 Patent, col. 1:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (’174 Patent, col. 42:17-49; Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 17 are:
  • A "treatment device" comprising a body with a power source and a processing unit, where the body has a skin-contacting surface that can be held against the skin by a user gripping the body.
  • A first and a second energy generator element, which are "independently operable" to convert electricity into a first and second energy type and direct them toward the skin.
  • The first energy generator element must be an "impact generator element" with a "linearly actuatable" tissue contact surface that physically moves the skin.
  • The processing unit is operable to output an "optical signal on a display" that is observable by the user and "correspond[s] to the control signal."
• The complaint also alleges infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is a battery-powered percussion massager sold by Defendant via channels such as Amazon.com and other retail stores (Compl. ¶¶4, 12, 16). The complaint itself provides minimal specific detail on the product's technical operation beyond what is alleged in its infringement theory. The product's name suggests it provides both percussive and thermal (hot and cold) energy. Paragraph 16 of the complaint contains a notable reference to "Therabody's infringing products," which may be a typographical error, as Therabody is a competitor to Plaintiff and not the named Defendant (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶12, Exhibit 2). The infringement theory is presented narratively by reciting the language of claim 17 and alleging that Defendant's product meets these limitations (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

The core of the infringement allegation is that the Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager is a "treatment device" that embodies all elements of claim 17 (Compl. ¶¶16-17). Plaintiff alleges the device has a body with a power source and processing unit, and is gripped by a user for application to the skin, meeting the first limitation (Compl. ¶17(a)). The complaint alleges the device has at least two "independently operable" energy generators: a percussive "impact generator element" that linearly strikes the skin (the first energy type), and a second generator (inferred from the "Hot & Cold" product name to be a thermal generator) that produces a second energy type (Compl. ¶17(b)). Finally, the complaint alleges the device’s processing unit is operable to output an "optical signal on a display" that corresponds to the internal control signal, such as a light indicating a power or speed setting (Compl. ¶17(c)).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise from the patent's dual identity as both a "communication device" (per the title and background) and a "treatment device" (per the asserted claim). A question for the court will be whether the scope of Claim 17, which claims a "treatment device," is limited by the specification's focus on solving problems related to screen-based "person-to-computer communication" (’174 Patent, col. 1:32-55).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify what evidence it has that the accused product's two energy systems (percussion and thermal) are "independently operable" as required by the claim (’174 Patent, col. 42:29). A further technical question is whether a simple status indicator light on the accused massager performs the function of an "optical signal... corresponding to the control signal" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which also describes optical signals being used to communicate complex information like vital signs (’174 Patent, col. 4:55-64).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "treatment device"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental. Defendant may argue that the patent, given its title ("Communication devices...") and problem statement (replacing screens), is limited to devices for data communication, not general therapeutic massagers. Plaintiff will likely argue for the broader, plain meaning of "treatment device" as recited in the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The asserted claim itself, as well as the abstract, explicitly use the term "treatment device" (’174 Patent, col. 42:17; Abstract).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title and the entire "Background" section focus exclusively on the problem of "person-to-computer communication" and the negative effects of screen time, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to that context (’174 Patent, Title; col. 1:32-55).

• The Term: "optical signal on a display that is observable by eyes of the user, the output corresponding to the control signal"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation's satisfaction will likely depend on the specific functionality of the accused product's display. Practitioners may focus on this term because a simple power or speed indicator LED may not meet the requirements if the term is construed to require the communication of substantive information.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language does not explicitly require the signal to convey complex data, only that it "correspond" to the control signal, which a speed indicator light arguably does.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples where the "optical signal" comprises "a plurality of symbols associated with the vital signs" and can be "scrolled together" with a tactile energy signal, suggesting a role in active information display, not just passive status indication (’174 Patent, col. 4:55-64).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’174 Patent by no later than September 25, 2024, one day before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶13). Based on this alleged knowledge, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be "willful, intentional, and conscious" (Compl. ¶20) and seeks enhanced damages (Prayer for Relief ¶6).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "treatment device," as used in Claim 17, be construed to cover a general-purpose therapeutic massager, or is its meaning constrained by the patent specification's stated purpose of creating a "communication device" to replace visual screens?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional sufficiency: does the accused massager's display system, which the complaint implicitly alleges to be a feature like a status light, perform the function of an "optical signal... corresponding to the control signal" as required by the claim, particularly when the patent specification provides examples of such signals conveying complex data like vital signs?