DCT

8:25-cv-01939

Hyper Ice Inc v. Therabody Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:25-cv-01939, C.D. Cal., 09/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s percussive massage devices and therapy cup products infringe patents related to therapeutic devices that apply multiple, independently operable forms of energy to the skin.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of personal therapeutic and athletic recovery devices that combine modalities such as percussive massage, heat, and pressure therapy into integrated, user-controlled products.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a Second Amended Complaint, indicating that the pleadings have been modified twice since the case was initiated. The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-10-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’680 and ’220 Patents
2025-06-03 U.S. Patent No. 12,318,220 Issues
2025-08-26 U.S. Patent No. 12,396,680 Issues
2025-08-29 Date by which Defendant allegedly knew of the ’680 and ’220 Patents
2025-09-29 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,396,680 - “COMMUNICATION DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS,” Issued August 26, 2025

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the negative health effects associated with prolonged computer screen time and identifies a need for alternative methods of person-to-computer communication that leverage non-optical nerves, such as those in the skin (’680 Patent, col. 1:41-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a device featuring a body and a releasably secured generator (’680 Patent, Abstract). This generator contains at least two distinct "energy generator elements" which are independently operable to convert electricity into different forms of energy (e.g., impact and heat) and direct them toward the skin to communicate information or provide therapy (’680 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-55).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for integrating multiple therapeutic modalities into a single handheld device where different energy types can be controlled independently.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A body housing a power source, a processing unit, and a bus with an electrical connector.
    • A generator configured to be releasably secured to the body.
    • The generator comprising a first and a second energy generator element, which are independently operable to convert electricity into a first and second energy type and communicate them toward the skin.
    • Electrical conductors to provide a power pathway from the body to the generator.
    • A grip on the body for a user to hold.
    • The first energy generator element being an "impact generator element" with a drive mechanism, piston, and a linearly actuatable tissue contact surface.
    • The second energy generator element being "arranged coaxially" about the axis of the first.
  • The complaint alleges infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if literal infringement is not found (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 12,318,220 - “COMMUNICATION DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS,” Issued June 3, 2025

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’680 Patent, the background identifies the negative effects of excessive screen time and the need for non-optical communication methods to interact with users (’220 Patent, col. 1:41-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a treatment device with both a pressure generator and a heat generator, which can be operated independently to apply pressure and heat to the skin (’220 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is a "removably securable" housing that contains "an insulating material" designed to limit the escape of the pressure force or heat flux, thereby focusing the therapeutic effect on the target area of the skin (’220 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-55).
  • Technical Importance: The patented solution combines pressure-based therapy (such as cupping) with heat therapy in a portable device, using an insulated housing to enhance therapeutic efficiency.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A body containing a processing unit.
    • A pressure generator element and a heat generator element located within the body, which are independently operable to output a pressure force and a heat flux.
    • A housing that is removably securable to the body, with its distal end being positionable on the skin.
    • The housing includes an "insulating material" for limiting the flow of the pressure force and/or heat flux outside the housing.
  • The complaint alleges infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if literal infringement is not found (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses the Theragun PRO Plus and Theragun Prime Plus products of infringing the ’680 Patent (the "’680 Accused Products") (Compl. ¶12).
  • The complaint accuses the TheraCup products of infringing the ’220 Patent (the "’220 Accused Products") (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint provides limited technical detail, describing both sets of accused products as "battery-powered devices" (Compl. ¶¶21, 27). Based on their commercial branding, the ’680 Accused Products are understood to be percussive massage devices, while the ’220 Accused Products are understood to be automated cupping therapy devices.
  • Plaintiffs allege that Defendant sells these products through its website, Amazon.com, and various retail stores throughout the United States (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint references claim charts as exhibits but does not include them in the filing. The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the narrative allegations.

’680 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Theragun PRO Plus and Theragun Prime Plus products literally meet all limitations of Claim 1 of the ’680 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The core of this allegation is that these percussive massage devices embody the claimed combination of a body with a grip, a power source, and a generator. This generator is alleged to contain two independently operable and coaxially arranged energy elements: a first "impact generator element" (the percussive mechanism) and an unspecified "second energy generator element" that delivers a second type of energy.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the "second energy generator element." The analysis will question whether the accused products contain a second, distinct generator element that is "independently operable" from the main impact mechanism, or if they merely feature a single motor with multiple modes of operation.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the identity and function of the alleged "second energy generator element" in the accused products. The complaint does not specify whether this element is alleged to generate heat, a different frequency of vibration, or another energy type. The physical and operational evidence for this element being "arranged coaxially" with the impact piston will be critical.

’220 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the TheraCup products literally meet all limitations of Claim 1 of the ’220 Patent (Compl. ¶27). The infringement theory posits that these products contain a body with both a "pressure generator element" and a "heat generator element" that are independently operable. The theory further alleges that the products use a "removably securable" housing that incorporates an "insulating material" to limit the outward flow of pressure and heat, focusing these forces on the user's skin.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The construction of "pressure generator element" may be a point of contention. The claim uses the general term "pressure force," which raises the question of whether it is limited to negative pressure (suction), as is typical in cupping, or if it could also read on devices that apply positive pressure.
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary issue will be whether the material of the accused product's housing functions as an "insulating material" for both pressure and heat, as required by the claim. The analysis will question what evidence demonstrates that the housing material performs this specific limiting function beyond merely providing a structural shell.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’680 Patent:

    • The Term: "second energy generator element"
    • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement allegation, as the existence of a second, distinct, and coaxial energy element is a core requirement of Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant is likely to argue its products contain only a single impact-generating mechanism.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language refers broadly to a "second energy type," which is not limited to a specific form. The specification provides "impact energy and a heat flux" as examples, suggesting that "energy type" is a broad category (’680 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-55).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract’s specific pairing of "impact energy and a heat flux" could be cited to suggest that the "second energy type" was contemplated as being thermal energy, potentially limiting the scope if the accused device uses a different modality. The requirement that it be "arranged coaxially" may further narrow the scope to specific physical configurations shown in the embodiments.

  • For the ’220 Patent:

    • The Term: "insulating material for limiting flows of the pressure force and/or the heat flux"
    • Context and Importance: Infringement hinges on whether the accused TheraCup housing is made of a material that performs this specific dual-limiting function. Defendant may argue the housing is simply a structural component and lacks the claimed "insulating" properties, particularly concerning "pressure force."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose of the insulating material as promoting "flows of the one or more energies out of each communication bay in the signal direction" while limiting flows elsewhere (’220 Patent, col. 2:50-55). This could support a functional definition where any material that helps direct or focus the therapeutic energy meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "insulating material" itself has technical definitions in material science (e.g., low thermal or acoustic conductivity). A defendant could argue that the term requires a material specifically chosen for these properties, rather than a standard polymer used for the housing structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both the ’680 and ’220 patents (Compl. ¶¶24, 30). The allegations are based on Defendant having had knowledge of the patents "by no later than August 29, 2025," and its subsequent and continued alleged infringement being wanton, malicious, and egregious (Compl. ¶¶13, 18).

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

  • A core issue for the ’680 Patent will be one of structural and functional identity: do the accused Theragun products contain a second, "independently operable" and "coaxially arranged" energy generator, or do they utilize a single motor with different operational modes that fails to meet these distinct structural requirements of Claim 1?
  • A key evidentiary question for the ’220 Patent will be one of technical function: does the housing of the accused TheraCup product incorporate a material that demonstrably performs the claimed function of "insulating" to limit the flow of both pressure and heat, or is this a feature mismatch where the housing is merely a structural enclosure?
  • A central question for both asserted patents will be the interpretation of claim scope: how broadly will terms like "energy generator element" and "insulating material" be construed, and will the evidence show that the accused products' components and operations fall within those constructions?