DCT
1:25-cv-02183
Fuan Leercon Electronic Co Ltd v. Hyper Ice Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fuan Leercon Electronic Co., Ltd. d/b/a LEERCON (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: XYZ Law Firm, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02183, N.D. Ill., 03/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' e-commerce activities targeting customers in Illinois via Amazon.com and a patent assertion campaign directed at Plaintiff that impacts its business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its massage gun products do not infringe and that Defendant's asserted patent is invalid, following Defendant's patent infringement report against Plaintiff to Amazon.com.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld percussive massage devices, a product category with significant consumer market presence for personal wellness and athletic recovery.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states the litigation was initiated after Defendants filed an infringement report with Amazon.com against Plaintiff's products, creating a threat of delisting from the e-commerce platform. The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | '933 Patent Priority Date |
| 2025-02-04 | '933 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-12 | Defendants report alleged infringement to Amazon |
| 2025-03-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933, "Massage Device With a Releasable Connection For a Massaging Head," issued February 4, 2025
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies deficiencies in prior art massage devices, noting they are often "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (ʼ933 Patent, col. 1:31-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massager designed for improved usability. A key feature is a "quick-connect system" that enables a user to attach or detach different massaging heads, potentially while the device is still operating (ʼ933 Patent, col. 10:8-13). The specification details a magnetic mechanism for this connection, where magnets in the piston and the massaging head shaft attract to hold the head in place (ʼ933 Patent, col. 6:52-68, FIGS. 6, 6A). The design also contemplates specific component layouts to manage heat and improve handling (ʼ933 Patent, col. 1:38-42).
- Technical Importance: The described quick-connect mechanism offers a way to enhance the versatility and user experience of a massage device by allowing for rapid changes between different treatment heads without needing to power down the device (ʼ933 Patent, col. 6:55-59).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint focuses its non-infringement arguments on the sole independent claim, Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of asserted independent Claim 1 include:
- a housing;
- a piston with a bore at its distal end;
- a motor to make the piston reciprocate at a first speed;
- a drive mechanism determining a "predetermined stroke length";
- a "quick-connect system" comprising the piston's distal end and a massaging head;
- wherein the system allows the head to be "inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed"; and
- wherein the drive mechanism includes a flywheel connected to the motor's output shaft and a crank pin connected to the piston (ʼ933 Patent, col. 10:1-21).
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 2-15 are not infringed if independent Claim 1 is not infringed (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies Plaintiff’s "Deep Tissue Mini Massage Guns," sold on Amazon.com under at least ASINs B0DFT8Q2MF, B0DFTHQ3Z4, and B0D1NZGMXS (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 14).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes these products as massage devices that constitute a "significant portion" of the Plaintiff's business on the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶16). From a technical standpoint, the complaint alleges the accused products do not use a magnetic connection mechanism for the massage head and do not operate in the specific manner required by Claim 1 of the '933 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes Plaintiff's asserted basis for why its products do not meet specific limitations of the '933 patent's independent claim.
'933 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (Plaintiff's Position) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head... | Plaintiff alleges that its massage guns do not use magnets for the connection mechanism and therefore do not have the claimed "quick-connect system," which Plaintiff contends should be construed as requiring magnets. | ¶28 | col. 6:52-68 |
| ...wherein the quick-connect system allows a proximal end of the first massaging head to be inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed. | Plaintiff alleges its products do not meet this functional limitation, asserting they lack a mechanism where the piston "reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed" in a manner that allows for head removal and insertion. | ¶28 | col. 10:8-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be the proper construction of "quick-connect system." The complaint advocates for a narrow construction limited to the magnetic embodiment disclosed in the specification (Compl. ¶28). This raises the question of whether the claim term is limited to the patent's sole disclosed embodiment or if it can encompass other non-magnetic structures that perform a similar function.
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises a factual dispute about the operation of its own products, specifically denying that the piston reciprocates at a "predetermined stroke length at the first speed" as required by the claim (Compl. ¶28). The case may require technical evidence to establish how the accused devices actually function relative to this claimed operational characteristic.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "quick-connect system"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's primary non-infringement argument rests on construing this term to require magnets (Compl. ¶28). Its construction is therefore critical to the outcome of the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's only detailed embodiment of the system is magnetic, creating a potential prosecution history estoppel or claim differentiation argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not recite "magnet" or "magnetic." It defines the system functionally as one that "allows a proximal end of the first massaging head to be inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates" (ʼ933 Patent, col. 10:8-13). This absence of explicit structural language may support a construction covering any mechanism achieving that function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's only described embodiment of the "quick-connect system 600" is explicitly magnetic, detailing how magnets in the piston and head shaft "are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place" (ʼ933 Patent, col. 6:52-54; col. 7:1-3). A party could argue that the patentee defined the invention as this magnetic system, potentially limiting the claim scope.
The Term: "while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is the second basis for Plaintiff's non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶28). The dispute will concern whether the accused device's operation meets this condition, making its construction important for assessing infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "while" simply means "during the time that" the piston is in its operational state, without imposing a more complex relationship between the act of removal and the piston's specific motion characteristics.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase could be construed to require a specific operational capability—that the system is robust enough to permit head swapping during reciprocation at a defined speed and stroke. The patent describes the system as allowing a user to "quickly switch massaging heads" without "turning off the massaging device 100" (ʼ933 Patent, col. 6:55-59), which may support a more stringent functional interpretation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "either directly or indirectly," but does not provide specific facts related to any theory of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶31).
- Exceptional Case Allegations: The complaint requests that the case be found "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. p. 8, ¶4). The basis for this request is the allegation that Defendants engaged in "anticompetitive actions" by "falsely claiming" infringement to Amazon in an effort to eliminate a competitor (Compl. p. 8, ¶4).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Is the claimed "quick-connect system" limited to the magnetic embodiment detailed in the patent specification, or does the claim language encompass any mechanical structure that allows for swapping the massage head while the device is operating?
- A second central question will be one of invalidity: Beyond the infringement dispute, Plaintiff has challenged the patent's validity on grounds including anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement or written description, which will require an analysis of the prior art and the patent's prosecution history (Compl. ¶21).
- A third issue relates to litigation conduct: The court will have to consider whether Defendants' pre-suit enforcement activity on the Amazon platform was a "baseless" and "anticompetitive" action sufficient to deem the case exceptional and award attorney's fees to the Plaintiff should it prevail (Compl. p. 8, ¶4).