DCT
0:24-cv-00011
Hyper Ice Inc v. Bob Brad LLC Do Not Docket Case HAS BEEN transferred Out
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Bob and Brad, LLC (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
- Case Identification: 0:24-cv-00011, D. Minn., 01/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because the Defendant is incorporated in Minnesota, maintains its principal place of business in the state, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage guns infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and functionality of battery-powered percussive massage devices.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the popular consumer market for handheld, electronic percussive massage devices, which are used for deep muscle therapy and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on January 2, 2024, and the complaint was filed the following day on January 3, 2024, suggesting a swift enforcement action following the patent grant. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing, or administrative proceedings related to the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 |
| 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 - "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length," issued January 2, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior art massaging devices suffer from deficiencies such as being "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’482 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a handheld percussive massager designed to address these issues. The core of the described device is a drive mechanism, such as a "Scotch yoke," that converts a motor's rotary motion into a piston's linear, reciprocating motion (’482 Patent, col. 5:8-13). To reduce noise and wear, the mechanism may incorporate a spring bar to take up slack between moving parts (’482 Patent, col. 5:27-49). The design also features a quick-connect system for attaching different massage heads, which is functionally described as being able to secure a head even while the piston is moving (’482 Patent, col. 7:10-13).
- Technical Importance: The described design aims to provide a more durable, quieter, and user-friendly percussive massager by refining the core drive mechanism and the user interface for swapping attachments (’482 Patent, col. 1:29-34; col. 5:24-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A housing;
- A piston with a proximal end and a distal end, where the distal end has a substantially cylindrical bore;
- A motor within the housing operatively connected to the piston's proximal end to cause reciprocation;
- A drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- A quick-connect system at the piston's distal end, configured to secure a massaging head by sliding its proximal end into the bore while the piston is reciprocating.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as the Bob and Brad "D6 Pro Massage Gun, the X6 Pro Massage Gun, the C2 Massage Gun, the T2 Massage Gun, the Q2 Mini Massage Gun, the Air 2 Mini Massage Gun, and the UNI Massage Gun" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶15). The infringement allegations are based on the assertion that these products contain the structural and functional elements recited in Claim 1 of the ’482 patent, including a housing, piston, motor, drive mechanism, and a quick-connect system for massage heads (Compl. ¶15a-e). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused products or their market position.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing; | The accused products are alleged to include a housing. | ¶15a | col. 3:35-37 |
| a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore; | The accused products are alleged to include a piston with a distal end that has a substantially cylindrical bore. | ¶15b | col. 6:56-62 |
| 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 accused products are alleged to include a motor that is at least partially within the housing and drives the piston to reciprocate. | ¶15c | col. 4:36-40 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and | The accused products are alleged to include a drive mechanism that controls the piston's stroke length. | ¶15d | col. 5:8-13 |
| 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 predetermined stroke length at the first speed. | The accused products are alleged to include a quick-connect system that secures a massage head by sliding it into the piston's bore, with this functionality allegedly operable while the piston is reciprocating. | ¶15e | col. 7:1-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The final limitation of Claim 1 requires that the quick-connect system is "configured to secure" a massage head while the piston is actively reciprocating. A central question will be whether the accused products are in fact designed for, or capable of, this specific function. The complaint alleges this functionality but provides no supporting evidence, such as user manual instructions or video demonstrations. Discovery will be needed to determine if the accused products' attachment mechanisms operate in the claimed manner.
- Scope Question: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of whether the accused products' internal components, such as the "drive mechanism" and "piston," fall within the scope of those terms as defined and described in the ’482 patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "quick-connect system... configured to secure the first massaging head... while the piston reciprocates"
- Context and Importance: This functional limitation appears to be the most specific and potentially novel aspect of Claim 1. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the accused products are found to be "configured" for this on-the-fly attachment capability.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "configured to" means the system is merely capable of performing the function, not that it must be the primary or intended method of use. The specification’s disclosure that a tapered massage head can "easily slip into the opening... even while the piston... is moving" could be cited to support the feasibility of such a configuration (’482 Patent, col. 7:10-13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "configured to" implies a specific design or intent for this function, rather than an incidental capability. They may contend that a standard friction-fit or magnetic system that could be forced together while in motion does not meet this limitation unless it was specifically designed to do so safely and reliably.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain specific counts or factual allegations supporting indirect infringement or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The case, as presented in the notice-pleading complaint, raises two central questions that will likely shape the litigation:
A key question will be one of functional operation: Does the attachment mechanism of the accused massage guns meet the specific functional requirement of being "configured to secure" a new head "while the piston reciprocates"? Proving this element will likely require evidence beyond the products' basic structure, focusing on their operational capabilities as designed and used.
An overarching issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement without providing supporting factual detail or evidence. Consequently, the case will turn on the technical evidence developed during discovery regarding the precise design, construction, and operation of the accused products' internal drive mechanisms and attachment systems.