DCT
1:24-cv-03311
Hyper Ice Inc v. Meijer Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Meijer, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP; Miller Barondess LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03311, N.D. Ill., 04/24/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including specific retail locations.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain battery-powered percussive massage devices sold by Defendant infringe a patent related to a quick-connect mechanism for attaching and detaching massage heads.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld, electronic percussive massage guns, a popular category of consumer wellness devices used for muscle therapy and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority through a chain of applications to a provisional application filed in 2013, indicating a lengthy prosecution history. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | ’482 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application Filing) |
| 2018-01-01 (on or before) | Plaintiff's Hypervolt product line launched |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Issues |
| 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"
- Patent Identification: 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 prior art massaging devices can be “bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time” (’482 Patent, col. 1:26-30).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a handheld percussive massage device with a motor that drives a reciprocating piston. The invention, as claimed in this suit, centers on a "quick-connect system" designed to secure a massage head to the piston. This system is specifically configured to allow a user to attach a massage head by sliding it into a bore on the piston’s end, even "while the piston reciprocates" (’482 Patent, col. 10:11-18). The specification discloses a magnetic system as one way to achieve this quick connection ('482 Patent, col. 6:55-7:4).
- Technical Importance: A system allowing for the rapid exchange of massage heads, particularly without needing to power down the device, could enhance user convenience and the versatility of the massager for different applications or muscle groups ('482 Patent, col. 6:52-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A housing.
- A piston with a substantially cylindrical bore at its distal end.
- A motor to cause the piston to reciprocate.
- A drive mechanism controlling the piston's stroke length.
- A quick-connect system comprising the piston's distal end and a massage head, which is "configured to secure the first massaging head... by... being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Homedics Pro Series Percussion Massager, SLF Mini Percussion Massager, SLF Percussion Muscle Massager, and Wahl Intense Relief Therapeutic Percussion Massager" as the accused products (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "battery-powered percussive massagers" sold by Defendant at its supermarkets and through its website (Compl. ¶4, ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation of the accused products' massage head attachment mechanisms or their market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint does not contain an embedded claim chart but alleges in prose that the accused products meet all limitations of Claim 1, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶17). The following chart summarizes those allegations.
’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 have a housing. | ¶17a | 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 have a piston with a distal end containing a substantially cylindrical bore. | ¶17b | col. 6:58-60 |
| 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 have a motor that reciprocates the piston. | ¶17c | col. 3:40-44 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The complaint alleges the accused products have a drive mechanism controlling the piston's stroke length. | ¶17d | col. 5:12-14 |
| 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...being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed | The complaint alleges the accused products have a quick-connect system that secures the head when slid into the bore while the piston is reciprocating. | ¶17e | col. 7:8-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details about the accused products' attachment mechanisms. A central question for discovery will be how those mechanisms function. For instance, do they use magnets as described in the patent's embodiment, a friction fit, a detent lock, or another method? The degree of similarity between the accused mechanism and the claimed system will be a primary focus.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the functional limitation requiring the system to be "configured to secure" the head "while the piston reciprocates." This raises the question of whether "configured to" requires that the device be specifically designed or intended for this "hot-swapping" action, or if it is sufficient that the action is merely physically possible. Evidence from user manuals, warnings, and the physical design of the accused products will be critical to resolving this question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "quick-connect system"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the asserted claim. The breadth of its construction will determine what types of attachment mechanisms fall within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the system's purpose functionally, stating it "allows a user to quickly switch massaging heads" and may be "used without turning off the massaging device" ('482 Patent, col. 6:52-56). This language could support a construction that is not limited to a specific structure but covers any mechanism achieving this function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only detailed embodiment of the "quick-connect system" disclosed in the specification is a magnetic one ('482 Patent, Figs. 6-6A; col. 6:55-7:4). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed more narrowly in light of this specific disclosure.
The Term: "configured to secure... while the piston reciprocates"
- Context and Importance: This functional language appears to be a key point of novelty. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will define the required capability of an infringing device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that some embodiments are designed to "allow [the head] to easily slip into the opening... even while the piston... is moving" ('482 Patent, col. 7:9-11). This suggests the term encompasses designs that make hot-swapping possible.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "configured to" implies an intended or designed-for purpose, not just a theoretical possibility. If an accused product's user manual, for example, instructs users to power off the device before changing heads, the defendant could argue its product is not "configured" for the claimed action.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful (Compl. ¶20). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be knowledge of the patent acquired no later than the date the complaint was filed, suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: How does the head-attachment mechanism in the accused Homedics, SLF, and Wahl products actually function, and does that operation meet the specific limitations of Claim 1? The lack of detail in the complaint makes this a central point for discovery.
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and function: Can the claim limitation "configured to secure... while the piston reciprocates" be met if a device is merely physically capable of receiving a massage head while operating, or must the device be affirmatively designed, intended, or promoted for such use? The court’s construction of this functional language will likely be dispositive.