DCT
4:25-cv-09026
Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co Ltd v. Hyper Ice Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and DataFeel Inc. (Nebraska)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SHM Law Firm
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-09026, N.D. Cal., 10/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Hyper Ice, Inc. is domiciled in California and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, namely enforcement actions against Plaintiff's Amazon listings, occurred in or caused harm within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Smart Cupping Therapy Massager" products do not infringe Defendant DataFeel's U.S. Patent No. 11,931,174, which Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hyper Ice is baselessly asserting against it.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to wearable or skin-contacting devices that communicate information to a user by applying various forms of energy (e.g., heat, pressure, impact) to the skin, positioned as an alternative to screen-based communication.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by infringement complaints filed by Defendant Hyperice with Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings from the Amazon marketplace, described by Plaintiff as its sole U.S. sales channel.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-10-23 | '174 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-11-09 | '174 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2024-03-19 | '174 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-07 | Amazon Notifies Plaintiff of Infringement Complaint |
| 2025-10-21 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,931,174 - "Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,931,174, titled “Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems,” issued on March 19, 2024 (the “'174 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes health problems associated with excessive screen time, such as eyestrain, and notes the human body’s capacity for non-visual data communication through nerves associated with the skin (’174 Patent, col. 1:30-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication or treatment device designed to convey information to a user through their skin. It comprises a main body, a plurality of "generator elements" capable of outputting different energy types (e.g., heat, impact, pressure), and a removable housing that directs these energies toward the skin while insulating them from escaping elsewhere (’174 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:11-16). This allows the device to create distinct signals or symbols on the skin to communicate data without requiring visual attention (’174 Patent, col. 14:35-47).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide an alternative, non-visual channel for person-to-computer communication, which could be particularly relevant for wearable health monitors or other devices where constant visual feedback is impractical or undesirable.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 11, and 18 as being asserted (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- A treatment device, comprising:
- a body containing a processing unit;
- a plurality of generator elements disposed within the body and being independently operable to output different energy types; and
- a housing removably securable to the body, the housing having a proximal end, a distal end, and a circumferential wall surrounding the plurality of generator elements when the housing is secured to the body, the distal end of the housing being positionable on skin about an area of the skin,
- wherein the housing includes an insulating material for permitting flows of the different energy types toward the area of skin and limiting flows of the different energy types outside the housing.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Plaintiff’s “Smart Cupping Therapy Massager” products, specifically models DS-A23-1 Pack and DS-A23-2 Pack (Compl. ¶15). The complaint refers to these as the "Non-Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint characterizes the products as "cupping therapy massagers" that provide suction and heat for therapeutic purposes (Compl. ¶¶28-29). Plaintiff states that the Amazon marketplace is its "sole sales channel" for these products into the United States, and that Defendant's infringement assertions led to the products' removal from that marketplace (Compl. ¶¶17-18). The complaint includes an image of the accused product, showing a small, cylindrical device with a translucent red cup (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following chart summarizes the Plaintiff's primary arguments for why its products do not meet the limitations of claim 1 of the ’174 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,931,174 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A treatment device... | Plaintiff alleges its product is a "cupping therapy massager" rather than a "treatment device." | ¶28 | col. 40:43 |
| a plurality of generator elements disposed within the body... | Plaintiff alleges that the product's heat element is located under the body, not "disposed within" it. This leaves only a single generator element (for suction) within the body, failing the "plurality" requirement. An annotated photograph shows the "heat element" as separate from and underneath the main "body" (Compl. p. 9). | ¶29 | col. 40:46-48 |
| a ... circumferential wall surrounding the plurality of generator elements when the housing is secured to the body... | Plaintiff alleges the housing is located under the body and only surrounds the heat element, not the "plurality of generator elements" as required. An annotated photograph depicts the "suction element" as external to the housing structure (Compl. p. 9). | ¶30 | col. 40:50-53 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the proper construction of "disposed within the body." The case raises the question of whether this term requires an element to be fully enclosed by the main structure, as Plaintiff argues, or if it can be read more broadly to include elements attached to an exterior or underside surface.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide regarding the actual physical arrangement of the product's components? The annotated photographs are presented as factual evidence that the heat element is external to the main "body," which, if accepted, would directly challenge whether a "plurality" of such elements exists "within" that body (Compl. p. 9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"disposed within the body"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff's primary non-infringement theory rests on it. If the product’s heat element is not "within the body," then the product lacks a "plurality" of generator elements within the body, and it cannot infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes a device with multiple generator elements, but the precise locational relationship is not always strictly defined as "enclosed." A party might argue "within" could mean integrated into the overall device structure, not necessarily inside a specific cavity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states, "The plurality of generator elements may be disposed within the body." Figure 3A, an exemplary embodiment of a generator, shows multiple elements (e.g., 36, 42, 48, 52) contained together inside a common housing (33), which may support an interpretation requiring elements to be contained inside a main structural component (’174 Patent, Fig. 3A).
"surrounding the plurality of generator elements"
- Context and Importance: This term is the basis for Plaintiff's second non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because Plaintiff alleges the housing in its product surrounds only one element (heat), not the required "plurality."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "surrounding" does not require a complete 360-degree enclosure of all elements together, but could mean being generally arranged around the operational components of the device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim connects "surrounding" to the "plurality of generator elements," suggesting the housing must encompass all of the elements that constitute the claimed plurality. Plaintiff's provided photograph, which shows the suction element located apart from the housing, may be used to argue this limitation is not met (Compl. p. 9).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff has not infringed "whether directly, contributorily, or by inducement" (Compl. ¶26). No specific facts are alleged by Plaintiff regarding indirect infringement; rather, it is a categorical denial of liability.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the phrase "disposed within the body" be construed to cover a heating element attached to the underside of the main device structure, or does it require full enclosure as Plaintiff contends? The outcome of this definitional dispute may be dispositive of the infringement question.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of physical fact: does the accused product’s heat element reside "under" the main body as depicted in the complaint’s annotated photograph, leaving only a single "suction element" inside? If so, this would prevent the "plurality of generator elements" limitation from being met, regardless of how "within" is construed.