DCT
1:24-cv-03304
Hyper Ice Inc v. Performance Health Systems LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice Inc (California) and Hyperice IP Subco LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Performance Health Systems LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP; Miller Barondess LLP
- Case Identification: Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Performance Health Systems, LLC, 1:24-cv-03304, N.D. Ill., 04/24/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage guns infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and head-attachment mechanism of such devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld, electronic percussive massage devices, a product category that has seen significant growth in the consumer health and wellness market.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent issued recently, on January 2, 2024, but claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2013. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Priority Date |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Issue Date |
| 2024-04-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - “Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length,” issued January 2, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that many prior art massaging devices were deficient for being "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’482 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a handheld percussive massager designed to be more robust and user-friendly. The invention includes a motor that drives a piston in a reciprocating motion, coupled with a "quick-connect system" that allows a user to easily attach and detach different massaging heads. One described embodiment of this system uses magnets to secure the head to the piston, enabling the head to be swapped even while the device is in motion (’482 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:47-57).
- Technical Importance: The design focuses on improving the user experience by simplifying the customization of the device for different therapeutic applications through easily interchangeable heads.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (’482 Patent, col. 10:1-19; Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- a housing;
- a piston with a "substantially cylindrical bore" at its distal end;
- a motor operatively connected to the piston to cause reciprocation;
- a drive mechanism controlling a "predetermined stroke length"; and
- a "quick-connect system" for securing a massaging head by sliding its proximal end into the piston's bore, including while the piston is reciprocating.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Power Plate Pulse Massage Gun and the Power Plate Mini Massage Gun" as infringing products (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges these products are sold by Defendant through its website, powerplate.com, to consumers throughout the United States, including in the Northern District of Illinois (Compl. ¶4). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the operation of the accused products or their specific features.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe Claim 1 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶17). It does not, however, provide a detailed mapping of accused product features to claim limitations, instead asserting that the products include the elements recited in the claim.
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing | The complaint alleges the accused products include a housing. | ¶17(a) | col. 3:35-36 |
| a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore | The complaint alleges the accused products include a piston with a distal end having a substantially cylindrical bore. | ¶17(b) | col. 6:57-59 |
| 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 the accused products include a motor configured to cause the piston to reciprocate. | ¶17(c) | col. 3:36-40 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The complaint alleges the accused products include a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length. | ¶17(d) | col. 5:10-14 |
| a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, wherein the quick-connect system is configured to secure the first massaging head...by a proximal end of the massaging head being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates | The complaint alleges the accused products include a quick-connect system with the recited configuration and functionality, allowing a head to be secured while the piston is reciprocating. | ¶17(e) | col. 6:47-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A primary evidentiary question will be whether the accused products' head-attachment mechanism performs the specific function required by Claim 1(e): securing a massaging head that is "slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates." The complaint provides no specific facts or evidence to support this functional allegation.
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents raises the question of whether the accused devices’ attachment mechanism, if not identical to the claimed system, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result (Compl. ¶17).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "quick-connect system"
Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's point of novelty. Its construction will likely determine whether the attachment mechanism of the accused products falls within the scope of Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specific magnetic embodiment, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction than the plain words might suggest.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself does not inherently require magnets. Plaintiff may argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any mechanical interface that allows for rapid, tool-less connection and disconnection of the massaging head.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description of the "quick-connect system 600" focuses exclusively on a magnetic implementation, with a "magnet 606" in the piston and a "magnet 624" in the massaging head (’482 Patent, col. 6:57-67). Defendant may argue that these details limit the scope of the term to the disclosed magnetic embodiment or its structural equivalent.
The Term: "while the piston reciprocates"
Context and Importance: This functional language in Claim 1(e) imposes a specific performance requirement on the "quick-connect system". The dispute may center on whether the accused products are, in fact, "configured to secure" a head during active operation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue this language means the system is simply capable of latching onto a head if one is presented while the device is running, regardless of whether this is a primary or intended mode of operation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue this requires the system to be specifically designed for "hot-swapping" heads as a safe and intended function, pointing to language describing how the end of the head is "rounded, pointed or tapered...to allow it to easily slip into the opening...even while the piston...is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 7:8-12).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful. The factual basis for this claim is that Defendant had knowledge of the ’482 Patent "no later than the date of the filing of this Complaint" and continued to infringe thereafter (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 20). This suggests a theory of willfulness based on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "quick-connect system" be construed broadly to cover any rapid attachment mechanism, or will it be limited by the specification’s detailed description of a magnetic system? The outcome of this claim construction battle will be critical.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of demonstrated function: what evidence can Plaintiff produce during discovery to prove that the accused products’ attachment mechanism is, in fact, "configured to secure" a new massaging head "while the piston reciprocates," a specific functional limitation required by the asserted claim? The complaint's lack of detail on this point makes it a central factual dispute.