DCT
8:26-cv-00003
Therabody Inc v. Hyper Ice Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Renner Otto; Byron Raphael LLP
- Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00003, C.D. Cal., 01/02/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Hyperice resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hypervolt Go 2 percussion massage device infringes a patent related to the specific mechanical and geometric configuration of such devices.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld percussive therapy devices used for muscle treatment and recovery, a significant segment of the personal health and wellness market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant’s General Counsel on December 10, 2025, which included a copy of the patent-in-suit and a claim chart comparing claim 1 to the accused device.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-26 | ’919 Patent Priority Date |
| 2025-08-26 | ’919 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-12-10 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2026-01-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,396,919 - *Percussive Therapy Device With Electrically Connected Attachment*
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,396,919, issued August 26, 2025 (’919 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for improved massage devices, noting that existing devices are often superficial, and that percussive devices are frequently used in an "ineffective manner" (’919 Patent, col. 1:55-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a percussive therapy device with a specific geometric arrangement of its components. It features a motor driving a push rod assembly that reciprocates to provide therapy via an attachment (’919 Patent, Abstract). The claims focus on the spatial relationships between the handle, the motor's axis, and the reciprocating output shaft, including a specific "obtuse" angle between the handle and the shaft, which may be intended to improve ergonomics and performance (’919 Patent, col. 6:23-42; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The complaint suggests this type of device, pioneered by Plaintiff's founder, created a new category of effective, deep-muscle treatment tools for both professional athletes and general consumers (Compl. ¶¶8-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’919 Patent (Compl. ¶¶29-32).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A housing and a handle portion.
- A motor configured to output torque about a motor axis.
- An eccentric shaft configured to travel in a circle about the motor axis.
- A push rod assembly connected to the motor, comprising an output shaft that reciprocates along a reciprocation axis.
- A specific geometric relationship where the reciprocation axis is "transverse to the handle portion on a dividing plane normal to the motor axis."
- A further geometric relationship where the push rod assembly connects to the eccentric shaft "at a location offset from the dividing plane."
- A final geometric constraint that an "interior angle defined between the handle portion and the output shaft is obtuse."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant Hyperice’s "Hypervolt Go 2" percussion massage device (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Hypervolt Go 2 is a "percussive therapy system" that includes a main device and at least one interchangeable attachment (Compl. ¶20). The device is alleged to contain a housing, a handle, and a motor that drives a reciprocating push rod and output shaft, which provides the percussive motion (Compl. ¶¶21-28). The complaint positions the Hypervolt Go 2 as a direct competitor to Plaintiff’s own massage device products (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Hypervolt Go 2 meets every limitation of claim 1 of the ’919 Patent (Compl. ¶30). The core allegations are summarized below based on the narrative mapping provided in the complaint.
’919 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a percussive therapy device comprising: a housing; a handle portion; | The Hypervolt Go 2 includes a housing and a handle portion. | ¶¶21-22 | col. 6:23-32 |
| a motor positioned in the housing and configured to output torque about a motor axis; | The Hypervolt Go 2 includes a motor positioned in the housing that is configured to output torque about a motor axis. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 6:40-42 |
| an eccentric shaft configured to travel in a circle about the motor axis in response to activation of the motor; | The Hypervolt Go 2 includes an eccentric shaft that travels in a circle about the motor axis when the motor is activated. | ¶25 | col. 14:56-64 |
| a push rod assembly operatively connected to the motor and configured to reciprocate... wherein the push rod assembly comprises an output shaft configured to travel along a reciprocation axis... | The Hypervolt Go 2 includes a push rod assembly connected to the motor that reciprocates and has an output shaft traveling along a reciprocation axis. | ¶26 | col. 14:56-67 |
| the reciprocation axis extends transverse to the handle portion on a dividing plane normal to the motor axis, | The push rod assembly's reciprocation axis allegedly extends transverse to the handle on a dividing plane normal to the motor axis. | ¶26 | col. 34:26-34 |
| a proximal end of the push rod assembly is connected to the eccentric shaft at a location offset from the dividing plane in a first direction, | The push rod assembly's proximal end allegedly connects to the eccentric shaft at a location offset from the dividing plane. | ¶27 | col. 34:34-39 |
| an interior angle defined between the handle portion and the output shaft is obtuse; | An interior angle between the handle portion and the output shaft of the Hypervolt Go 2 is allegedly obtuse. | ¶27 | col. 34:42-45 |
| an attachment configured to be operatively connected to the output shaft of the percussive therapy device. | The Hypervolt Go 2 system includes an attachment configured for connection to the output shaft. | ¶28 | col. 2:5-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the construction of the patent's specific geometric terms. For example, how the court defines the "dividing plane normal to the motor axis" will be critical for determining whether other spatial limitations, such as the "offset" connection, are met.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis raises factual questions about the Hypervolt Go 2's construction. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the connection point of its push rod is "offset from the dividing plane" as that plane is defined in the patent? Similarly, how is the "interior angle" between the handle and output shaft measured in the accused device, and does it meet the "obtuse" limitation required by the claim?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "dividing plane normal to the motor axis"
- Context and Importance: This term establishes the geometric frame of reference for several other limitations in claim 1, including the "offset" location of the push rod connection. The entire infringement analysis for these relational elements depends on where this plane is located. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is fundamental to proving or disproving infringement of the claim's novel geometric arrangement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a functional definition ("normal to the motor axis") without being tied to a specific illustrated angle or embodiment, which may support an interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the geometric terms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be understood in the context of the device's overall structure as depicted in patent figures like FIG. 1, potentially limiting how the "plane" is envisioned relative to the device's housing and handle.
The Term: "an interior angle defined between the handle portion and the output shaft is obtuse"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a key ergonomic or mechanical feature of the device. Whether the accused product infringes may depend entirely on whether its corresponding angle is greater than 90 degrees.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the general term "obtuse," which has a clear mathematical meaning (greater than 90 and less than 180 degrees), suggesting the patentee intended to cover any configuration within that range (’919 Patent, col. 34:42-45).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be limited by the specific angles and configurations shown in the patent's drawings (e.g., ’919 Patent, FIG. 1), suggesting the term should not be read so broadly as to cover angles that are substantially different from the depicted embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’919 Patent since at least December 10, 2025, the date Plaintiff sent a notice letter that allegedly included a claim chart mapping claim 1 to the Hypervolt Go 2 (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 34). The continued sale of the accused product after this date is alleged to be intentional and made with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on two central questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of geometric interpretation: How will the court construe the precise spatial and angular limitations recited in claim 1, such as "dividing plane normal to the motor axis" and the "obtuse" interior angle? The outcome of the claim construction will likely determine the scope of the patent's protection.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual conformance: Assuming the court adopts the Plaintiff's proposed constructions, does the accused Hypervolt Go 2, as a matter of engineering fact, actually embody the specific offset connections and angular relationships required by the claim?