DCT

2:24-cv-04263

Emory Peak Wellness LLC v. Hyper Ice Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-04263, D.S.C., 08/02/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of South Carolina, where they conduct business by selling products directly and through retailers.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for a patent related to percussive massage devices, following Defendant's successful efforts to have Plaintiff's products removed from Amazon.com based on infringement allegations.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld percussive massage devices, a popular category of consumer electronics used for muscle therapy and recovery.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on or about June 18, 2024, Defendants contacted Amazon and asserted that several of Plaintiff's products infringe the patent-in-suit. This action allegedly led Amazon to remove the accused products from its marketplace, precipitating this declaratory judgment action by the Plaintiff, which also includes claims for tortious interference and unfair trade practices.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-01 ’082 Patent Priority Date
2024-03-26 ’082 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-18 Defendant allegedly asserts infringement to Amazon
2024-08-02 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 - "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length," issued March 26, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies deficiencies in prior art massage devices, noting they were often "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (col. 1:28-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a handheld percussive massager designed for improved ergonomics, thermal management, and usability. The design features a motor and drive mechanism housed separately from a heat sink, with a fan to actively cool the heat-generating components (col. 6:10-29). A key feature is a "quick-connect system" that allows a user to attach and detach different massage heads, potentially while the device is still in operation, enabling more versatile use (col. 8:52-65).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to create a more robust and user-friendly professional-grade device by addressing common points of failure and inconvenience, such as overheating and the inability to easily change applicator heads.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of the patent generally, without specifying claims (Compl. ¶27). Independent claim 1 is representative:
    • a housing;
    • a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a bore;
    • a motor operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston, wherein the motor is configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed;
    • a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
    • a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, wherein the quick-connect system is configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to challenge dependent claims, but seeks a declaration that its products do not infringe "any valid and enforceable claim" of the patent (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Ekrin Products," specifically the "Ekrin Bantam, Ekrin 365, Ekrin B37, and Ekrin B37S," as the instrumentalities accused of infringement by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Ekrin Products as "massage devices" that Plaintiff offers for sale and sells via its website and on Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the internal mechanisms, attachment systems, or operational characteristics of the accused products. The core of the dispute arises from Defendants' successful effort to have these products removed from the Amazon marketplace, which the complaint frames as an anti-competitive action (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, it does not contain a claim chart or a detailed infringement theory from the patent holder (Defendant Hyperice). The complaint states only that Defendants made an assertion to Amazon that Plaintiff's products infringe the ’082 Patent (Compl. ¶16). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary based on the complaint's allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative independent claim 1 and the general nature of the accused products, the infringement analysis will likely focus on several key questions:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of a "quick-connect system" will be a primary issue. The court may need to determine if this term is limited to the magnetic embodiment detailed in the ’082 Patent's specification (col. 6:56-65) or if it has a broader functional meaning that could cover the attachment mechanism used in the Ekrin Products.
    • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute may concern the functional limitation requiring that the massaging head can be "inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates." Evidence of whether the Ekrin Products can actually perform this function safely and effectively will be necessary.
    • Technical Questions: Another point of contention may be whether the drive mechanism in the Ekrin Products controls a "predetermined stroke length" in the manner claimed. This raises the question of how the stroke length in the accused devices is determined and whether it corresponds to the patent's description of a control mechanism, such as the offset between a flywheel axis and a crank pin axis (col. 10:46-49).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "quick-connect system" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the method of attaching and detaching massage heads is a core functional aspect of these devices. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the mechanism used by the Ekrin Products falls within the scope of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A party could argue for a broad, functional definition covering any mechanism that allows for rapid connection and disconnection of the massage head.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment of the "quick-connect system" describes a specific magnetic implementation, where magnets in the piston and the massage head shaft attract to hold the head in place (col. 6:56–7:4). A party could argue that the claims should be limited to this disclosed magnetic system or equivalents thereof.

  • The Term: "wherein the quick-connect system is configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation that defines how the "quick-connect system" must operate. Practitioners may focus on this term because it sets a high bar for infringement, requiring not just a quick connection but one that can be operated while the device's piston is actively moving. Proving or disproving this capability in the accused products will be a key evidentiary challenge.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is direct and functional. A party arguing for infringement would assert that if the accused device is physically capable of this action, it infringes, regardless of whether it is a recommended or primary mode of operation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue this language implies a system specifically designed and intended for this purpose, as described in the patent (col. 7:5-12). If an accused product's system is merely capable of this action but not designed for it (e.g., it is difficult or unsafe), it might be argued not to be "configured" in the claimed manner.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint includes several counts beyond the core patent dispute, alleging business torts based on the Defendants' enforcement actions.

  • Tortious Interference & Unfair Trade Practices: The complaint alleges that Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's contractual relations with Amazon by "falsely alleging" patent infringement (Compl. ¶34). It further alleges this conduct constitutes a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUPTA) (Compl. ¶46). The factual basis for these claims is the assertion that Defendants "knew or should have known" that Plaintiff's products do not infringe the ’082 Patent and that the purpose of the allegations was to harm Plaintiff and "coerce Plaintiff into entering a license agreement" (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 41).
  • Willful Conduct: The complaint alleges that the Defendants' tortious conduct was "willful, wanton, and/or reckless," seeking punitive and treble damages (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38, 50). This allegation centers on the Defendants' state of mind when making the infringement assertions to Amazon, not on any infringement by the Plaintiff.

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 various attachment mechanisms, or will it be limited by the patent's specific disclosure of a magnetic system? The answer will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis for this key feature.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional capability: does the accused Ekrin Products' attachment system allow a massage head to be inserted or removed "while the piston reciprocates," as explicitly required by Claim 1? This is a factual question of technical operation that will require clear proof.
  • The case also presents a significant question of enforcement conduct: beyond the patent issues, the court will have to determine if the Plaintiff can prove that the Defendants' infringement allegations to Amazon were made in bad faith. This inquiry into the Defendants' knowledge and intent is central to the tortious interference and unfair trade practices claims.