8:25-cv-00260
Qianli Beoka Medical Technology Inc v. Hyperice Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. (China) and AnshiChuangyi-US (China)
- Defendant: Hyperice, Inc. (California) and DataFeel, Inc. (Nebraska)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Martin J. Foley, a PLC; Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC
- Case Identification: 8:25-cv-00260, C.D. Cal., 02/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Hyperice, Inc. resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their massage gun products do not infringe and that Defendants' patent, which relates to non-visual communication devices, is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves wearable devices that use various forms of energy (e.g., vibration, heat) to transmit information to a user's skin, intended as an alternative to screen-based communication.
- Key Procedural History: The action was initiated by the Plaintiffs following an infringement claim filed by Defendant Hyperice against them under Amazon.com's intellectual property reporting procedures, creating a justiciable controversy for this declaratory judgment action. Defendant DataFeel, Inc. is the owner of the patent-in-suit and has granted an exclusive license to Defendant Hyperice, Inc.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-10-23 | ’840 Patent - Earliest Priority Date (Provisional) |
| 2025-01-14 | ’840 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2025-01-23 | Hyperice files patent infringement claim via Amazon.com |
| 2025-02-10 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,193,840 - "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems", issued January 14, 2025
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "numerous health problems" associated with excessive screen time, such as eyestrain, and proposes a solution that leverages non-visual communication channels (’840 Patent, col. 1:41-53; Compl. ¶¶24-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication device, wearable on the skin, that uses a plurality of "energy generators" to transmit data to the user through non-optical nerves (’840 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:53-57). These generators can produce various energy types, such as impact, heat, or electrical shock, to convey information like alphanumeric symbols or vital signs, which can be scrolled across the skin to communicate complex data without a visual display (’840 Patent, col. 2:45-51).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a new paradigm for human-computer interaction by utilizing the skin as an information interface, thereby reducing dependency on visual screens (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts that claims 1, 11, and 16 are the independent claims of the ’840 patent (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A treatment device comprising a body;
- A generator configured to releasably attach to the body;
- The generator comprises a first and a second energy generator element;
- The elements are "independently operable to convert electricity into a first energy type and a second energy type, respectively," and direct these energies toward the skin;
- The first energy generator element includes a "drive mechanism, a piston, and a tissue contact surface that is linearly actuatable" to cause physical movement of the skin.
- The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"Beoka massage guns" sold by Plaintiff HeyChy on Amazon.com under various Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products simply as "massage guns" and states that Amazon.com is the "primary sales channel" for their sale (Compl. ¶¶6, 20). The complaint’s core non-infringement argument is based on an asserted categorical difference between the function of a massage gun and the "communication" purpose of the patented invention, noting that the words "massage" and "massager" do not appear anywhere in the patent (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
Visual Evidence
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The complaint makes a high-level argument that its products do not meet a key limitation, rather than presenting a detailed, element-by-element rebuttal of an infringement theory.
’840 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a generator ... comprising a first energy generator element and a second energy generator element, the first and second energy generator elements being independently operable to convert electricity into a first energy type and a second energy type... | Plaintiffs allege that their massage gun products do not practice this "generator" limitation, stating that the claims require the independent operation of elements to convert electricity into different energy types for the purpose of communication, which they contend their products do not do. | ¶¶30, 31, 32, 35 | col. 41:55-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be whether a "massage gun" can be considered a "treatment device" within the meaning of the patent. The complaint emphasizes the patent's focus on "communication" to reduce "screen time," suggesting a mismatch with the therapeutic purpose of a massage gun (Compl. ¶¶25, 28). This raises the question of whether the overall purpose and context described in the specification limit the scope of the claims.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused massage gun meet the claim limitation of a generator with two "independently operable" energy generator elements that convert electricity into two "different energy types"? The court will need to determine if a massage gun's primary percussive force (an "impact force" as described in claim 5) and any secondary effects (e.g., heat from the motor) constitute two distinct and independently operable energy types as required by the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term
"a first energy generator element and a second energy generator element, the first and second energy generator elements being independently operable to convert electricity into a first energy type and a second energy type"
Context and Importance
This limitation is the explicit focus of the Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument and is critical to the dispute (Compl. ¶¶31-32). The definition will determine whether a device primarily designed for single-mode percussive therapy can infringe a patent that appears to contemplate a more complex, multi-modal communication device. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely resolve the infringement question.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the claim language is plain and not limited by the "communication" examples in the specification. The patent's abstract describes the first energy generator element as including a "piston" that is "linearly actuatable...to cause corresponding physical movement of the area of skin," which could be argued to broadly describe the action of a massage gun (’840 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiffs will point to the patent's consistent focus on solving the problem of "excessive screen time" by providing "alternate means for person-to-computer communications” (’840 Patent, col. 1:50-53). The specification describes communicating "symbols" and "vital signs" through different energy types, suggesting the "first energy type" and "second energy type" must both be part of a data communication scheme, not just a primary therapeutic effect and an incidental byproduct (e.g., motor heat) (’840 Patent, col. 2:45-65). The complaint also notes the patent never mentions "massage" or "massagers" (Compl. ¶28).
VI. Other Allegations
Invalidity
Plaintiffs plead a contingent counterclaim for invalidity. They allege that if the claims are construed broadly enough to cover the Beoka massage guns, the claims would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 in light of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0305969 (Compl. ¶39). They also allege invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Compl. ¶40).
Exceptional Case
Plaintiffs request that the court find this to be an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle them to an award of attorney fees (Compl., p. 6, ¶c). The implicit basis for this request is the alleged mismatch between the patent’s disclosed purpose and its assertion against a conventional massage gun.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Claim Construction & Purpose: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "generator" with two "independently operable" and "different energy types," which is rooted in the patent's context of non-visual data communication, be construed to cover the primary therapeutic function of a percussive massage gun and any secondary operational effects?
- The Infringement/Invalidity Squeeze: The case presents a classic strategic question for the patentee: is there a claim construction broad enough to encompass a single-function therapeutic device like a massage gun, yet narrow enough to maintain validity over prior art in the therapeutic and massage device fields, such as the reference cited by the Plaintiffs?