1:24-cv-00004
Hyper Ice Inc v. Therabody Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00004, D. Del., 01/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Therabody is incorporated in the State of Delaware and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage devices infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and features of such devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld electronic percussive massage devices, a product category in the consumer health, wellness, and athletic recovery markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on January 3, 2024, just one day after the patent-in-suit was issued on January 2, 2024. The patent claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2013. No other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Provisional Application No. 61/841,693 filing date (priority date) |
| 2014-06-27 | Application No. 14/317,573 filing date (priority date) |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff began selling its own covered Hypervolt products |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 issues |
| 2024-01-03 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - “Battery-Powered Percussive Massage Device,” issued January 2, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior art massaging devices suffer from deficiencies, noting they can be "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (ʼ482 Patent, col. 1:26-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massage device with a specific mechanical arrangement. It employs a drive mechanism, described as a "Scotch yoke," to convert the motor's rotary motion into the linear, reciprocating motion of a piston (ʼ482 Patent, col. 5:8-14). The design also incorporates features intended to improve usability, such as a system for quickly connecting and disconnecting massage heads and a dedicated cooling system to dissipate heat generated by the motor and drive mechanism (ʼ482 Patent, col. 6:10-24, 6:47-58).
- Technical Importance: The claimed configuration aims to provide a more robust, quieter, and thermally efficient percussive massager, addressing key drawbacks of earlier designs.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 34 (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 34 are:
- a housing;
- a piston in the housing having a proximal and a distal end;
- a motor at least partially within the housing and operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston, wherein the motor is configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed;
- a drive mechanism between the motor and the piston that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- a quick release connector at the distal end of the piston, configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates, wherein the first massaging head has a substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses a range of Therabody products, including the TheraFace PRO, Theragun PRO, Theragun Sense, Theragun Elite, Theragun Prime, and Theragun mini (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentalities are described as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products, their internal mechanisms, or their market positioning beyond identifying them as competitors to the Plaintiff's own Hypervolt line of devices (Compl. ¶11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are presented in a narrative format, which is summarized in the table below. The complaint asserts that the accused products include the limitations of at least Claim 34 (Compl. ¶15).
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 34) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing | The complaint alleges Therabody's products include a housing. | ¶15a | col. 3:35-36 |
| a piston in the housing having a proximal end and a distal end | The complaint alleges Therabody's products include a piston in the housing. | ¶15b | col. 4:46-48 |
| a motor at least partially within the housing and operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston, wherein the motor is configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed | The complaint alleges Therabody's products include a motor configured to cause the piston to reciprocate. | ¶15c | col. 3:40-44 |
| a drive mechanism between the motor and the piston that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The complaint alleges Therabody's products include a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length. | ¶15d | col. 5:8-14 |
| a quick release connector at the distal end of the piston, wherein the quick release connector is configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed, wherein the first massaging head has a substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector | The complaint alleges Therabody's products include a quick release connector and corresponding massaging head with a pocket that meets the claim limitations. | ¶15e | col. 6:47-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical evidence, such as product teardowns or diagrams, to substantiate how the various accused Therabody models practice each claim element. A primary question will be whether the internal drive mechanism and quick release system of the accused products function in the manner required by the claims. For example, what evidence supports the allegation that the accused products' connector secures a massaging head with a "substantially cylindrical pocket" as claimed?
- Scope Questions: The complaint asserts infringement by a broad line of products, from the "TheraFace PRO" to the "Theragun mini." This raises the question of whether each of these distinct products contains all the limitations of Claim 34, or if there are material technical differences between the models that affect the infringement analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "quick release connector"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the final, and likely most specific, limitation of the asserted independent claim. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it defines the interface between the device's piston and the interchangeable massage heads. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification describes a specific magnetic embodiment for this function (ʼ482 Patent, col. 6:58-67), and the scope of the claim will depend on whether the term is limited to that embodiment or can be read more broadly.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of mechanism, using the general phrase "a quick release connector." Plaintiff may argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any mechanical, magnetic, or friction-fit interface that allows for rapid attachment and detachment of the massage head.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description discloses only one embodiment of the quick-connect system: a magnetic interface using a magnet (606) in the piston and a corresponding magnet (624) in the massage head shaft (ʼ482 Patent, col. 6:58-67; Fig. 6). Defendant may argue that the claims should be limited to this disclosed magnetic system, as it is the only structure the specification provides to achieve the "quick release" function.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case, filed the day after the patent issued, presents a direct competitor dispute in the consumer wellness device market. The resolution will likely depend on two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "quick release connector"? Will the term be limited to the magnetic embodiment detailed in the patent’s specification, or will it be interpreted more broadly to encompass other mechanical interfaces potentially used in the accused products?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual support, what evidence will be developed and presented to demonstrate that the diverse range of accused Therabody products each contain the specific combination of a reciprocating piston, a drive mechanism controlling a predetermined stroke length, and a quick-release system that mates with a "substantially cylindrical pocket" on the massage head, as required by Claim 34?