DCT
4:25-cv-00061
Distributing Co LLC v. Reathlete LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FKA Distributing Co., LLC d/b/a Homedics (Michigan)
- Defendant: Reathlete LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL.
- Case Identification: FKA Distributing Co., LLC d/b/a Homedics v. Reathlete LLC, 4:25-cv-00061, N.D. Fla., 02/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s incorporation in Florida and having a registered agent within the Northern District of Florida, in addition to allegations of substantial sales and business transactions within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s heated rotational massagers infringe a patent related to heat therapy apparatuses that deliver power to a heater on a rotating component.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the personal wellness device sector, specifically concerning electric massagers that integrate mechanical rotation with heat therapy to treat muscle tension.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant received actual notice of infringement on September 22, 2023. Notably, U.S. Patent No. 7,722,553, the patent-in-suit, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding which concluded on February 21, 2023, with the patentability of the asserted independent claim 1 being confirmed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-03-19 | ’553 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-05-25 | ’553 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-02-21 | ’553 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2023-09-22 | Alleged Date of Actual Notice of Infringement |
| 2025-02-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,722,553 - "Massage Apparatus" (issued May 25, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a home-use foot massager that provides the ability "to provide heat and massage simultaneously to the feet specifically at those areas targeted by a user," suggesting existing devices lacked this integrated functionality. (’553 Patent, col. 2:31-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a heat therapy apparatus that solves the problem of powering a heating element located on a rotating massage head. As described in the specification, the solution involves a stationary part (e.g., the housing) and a rotating part (the "substrate" carrying the heater). Power is transferred between them using a system of "conductive contacts" on one component and corresponding "conductive brushes" on the other, which are configured to maintain an electrical connection as the substrate rotates. (’553 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:57-col. 7:9).
- Technical Importance: The described approach enabled the design of massagers where the same moving component could provide both mechanical massage and continuous, powered heat therapy. (’553 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- a housing;
- a substrate mounted to the housing for rotation;
- a heater mounted to the substrate;
- a pair of conductive contacts mounted to either the substrate or the housing;
- a pair of conductive brushes mounted to the other of the substrate or the housing, which maintain engagement with the contacts during rotation;
- a "wherein" clause requiring that at least two of the contacts and brushes are in electrical communication with the heater and rotate relative to the housing to conduct electricity to the heater.
- The complaint states that Defendant’s activities may also infringe other unspecified claims of the ’553 patent. (Compl. ¶22, ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Defendant's "Heated Massagers," including the "NECKA neck massager" and the "SPINA back and neck massager." (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are alleged to be "heated rotational massagers" that provide both a Shiatsu "Kneading Massage" and a "Heating Function" or "Heat Therapy." (Compl. ¶12, ¶16).
- The complaint includes photographic evidence of a disassembled accused product to illustrate its internal mechanics. One photograph in the complaint shows a disassembled massager with a rotating substrate mounted on a circuit board. (Compl. p. 5). A subsequent photograph displays the substrate with infrared heaters connected by red and black wires. (Compl. p. 6).
- The complaint positions the parties as direct competitors in the market for personal health and wellness products. (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’553 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing | The accused massagers are alleged to include a housing. | ¶17 | col. 4:21-25 |
| a substrate mounted to the housing for rotation relative thereto | The accused massagers are alleged to possess a rotating substrate, as depicted in a photograph of a disassembled product. | ¶17 | col. 5:7-9 |
| a heater mounted to the substrate for providing a heat therapy effect from the substrate | The complaint alleges that infrared heaters are mounted to the rotating substrate. | ¶17, ¶18 | col. 6:1-5 |
| a pair of conductive contacts each mounted to one of the substrate and the housing | The complaint alleges the presence of "conductive contacts on the housing." A provided image shows what are alleged to be annular contacts inside the housing. | ¶19, ¶20, p. 7 | col. 6:57-60 |
| a pair of conductive brushes each mounted to the other of the substrate and the housing in engagement with one of the contacts for maintaining engagement during rotation of the substrate relative to the housing | The complaint alleges that "conductive brushes are mounted to the substrate" and engage the contacts during rotation. A visual depicts these alleged components. | ¶20, ¶21, p. 7 | col. 6:64-66 |
| wherein at least two of the contacts and brushes are in electrical communication with the heater and rotate relative to the housing with rotation of the substrate and the heater for conducting electricity to the heater | The complaint alleges that the brushes and contacts maintain contact during rotation to conduct electricity to the heater, and that the brushes are in electrical communication with the heater via wires. | ¶18, ¶19, ¶21 | col. 7:5-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may concern the precise definitions of "conductive brushes" and "conductive contacts." The dispute could turn on whether the components in the accused device meet the technical definitions of these terms as understood in the art and as potentially limited by the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product’s components perform the specific function of conducting electricity to the heater during rotation, as required by the claim's final "wherein" clause? The infringement allegation relies on photographs of disassembled, static components and their wiring, which may not be sufficient to demonstrate the required dynamic electrical functionality.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "conductive brushes" / "conductive contacts"
- Context and Importance: These reciprocal terms are at the core of the claimed invention, defining the mechanism that transfers power to the rotating heater. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the accused device’s components fall within the scope of these terms. Practitioners may focus on these terms because they are technical and their meaning is not explicitly defined in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to the brush element as a "conductor 90, such as a brush." (’553 Patent, col. 6:65-66). This "such as" phrasing could support an argument that "brush" is merely an example of a broader category of "conductor," potentially encompassing other types of sliding electrical contacts.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently uses the distinct terms "brushes" and "contacts" in Claim 1, suggesting they are structurally different elements, not interchangeable conductors. A party could argue that the term "brush" should be construed more narrowly to require a structure consistent with its common meaning in electrical engineering (e.g., a component with bristles or a flexible wiping element), as distinguished from the "annular conducting plate 84" described as the "contact." (’553 Patent, col. 6:57-66).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, supported by the factual assertion that Defendant provides instructions for operating the Heated Massagers, which allegedly direct users to perform infringing acts. (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving "actual notice" of the ’553 patent on September 22, 2023. (Compl. ¶24). The complaint further supports this allegation by inferring that Defendant copied Plaintiff’s products, given the parties' competitive status and product similarities. (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the scope of the reciprocal terms "conductive brushes" and "conductive contacts"? The case may turn on whether these terms are given a broad, functional meaning or are limited to the more specific physical structures disclosed in the patent's preferred embodiments.
A key evidentiary question will be one of proving function: beyond showing the existence of components that look like contacts and brushes, what technical evidence, such as circuit analysis or operational testing, will be required to prove that the accused devices actually perform the dynamic electrical function recited in Claim 1's "wherein" clause?
The allegation of willfulness raises a question of objective recklessness: did the Defendant's alleged continuation of infringing sales after receiving notice of the patent rise to the level of wanton or deliberate conduct, particularly given that the asserted claim's validity had been previously confirmed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an ex parte reexamination?