DCT

6:24-cv-00028

Hyper Ice Inc v. Emory Peak Wellness LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00028, W.D. Tex., 01/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a limited liability company formed in Texas, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of percussive massage devices infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and functionality of such devices, including a specific quick-connect system for massage heads.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld, battery-powered percussive massage devices, a product category that has gained significant popularity in the consumer wellness and athletic recovery markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on January 2, 2024, just 14 days before the complaint was filed. The complaint notes that Plaintiff has sold its own line of "Hypervolt" percussive massagers, allegedly covered by the patent, since at least 2018.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-01 ’482 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 61/841,693)
2018-01-01 (or earlier) Plaintiff began selling its Hypervolt line of products
2024-01-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Issues
2024-01-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - “Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background states that prior art massaging devices often 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. 1:28-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a handheld percussive massage device with specific internal mechanics, including a motor and drive mechanism to reciprocate a piston. A key aspect detailed is a "quick-connect system" that allows for the attachment of different massaging heads (’482 Patent, col. 2:5-8). One embodiment describes a magnetic quick-connect system designed to allow a user to attach a massaging head by simply sliding it into the piston’s bore, even while the device is operating and the piston is moving (’482 Patent, col. 6:47-68, col. 7:10-14).
  • Technical Importance: The described features aim to improve the user experience by simplifying the process of changing applicator heads and potentially reducing noise and wear associated with certain drive mechanisms (’482 Patent, col. 5:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • a housing;
    • a piston with a proximal end, a distal end, and a "substantially cylindrical bore" at the distal end;
    • a motor within the housing operatively connected to the piston to cause reciprocation at a first speed;
    • a drive mechanism controlling a "predetermined stroke length" of the piston; and
    • a "quick-connect system" comprising the piston's distal end and a massaging head, which 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 complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the ’482 Patent" (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "Ekrin B37, Ekrin B37S, Ekrin 365, and Ekrin Bantam percussive massage devices" (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as "battery-powered percussive massagers" (Compl. ¶16). It does not provide any specific technical details, diagrams, or descriptions of the accused products' internal mechanisms, drive systems, or method for attaching massage heads.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance or market positioning beyond identifying them as products that Defendant "manufactures, offers for sale, and/or sells" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe, "either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents," by including the limitations of Claim 1 (’482 Patent, Compl. ¶16). The allegations are stated at a high level without detailed mapping.

’482 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing The complaint asserts the accused products include a housing. ¶16a col. 9:66
a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore The complaint asserts the accused products include a piston with these features. ¶16b col. 10:1-3
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 asserts the accused products include a motor with these features and functions. ¶16c col. 10:4-8
a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston The complaint asserts the accused products include a drive mechanism with this function. ¶16d col. 10:9-10
a quick-connect system... 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 complaint asserts the accused products include a quick-connect system with this specific configuration and dynamic attachment capability. ¶16e col. 10:11-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The primary technical question is whether the accused Ekrin products possess a quick-connect system that is, in fact, "configured to secure" a massage head while the piston is actively reciprocating. The complaint provides no evidence, such as from user manuals or product testing, to support this functional allegation. The analysis will depend on evidence regarding the actual design and operational capabilities of the accused products' attachment mechanism.
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be the interpretation of the phrase "configured to." This raises the question of whether the claim requires the device to be specifically designed and intended for attachment while in motion, or if it is sufficient that such an attachment is merely physically possible, even if not the recommended or typical method of use.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a quick-connect system ... configured to secure the first massaging head ... while the piston reciprocates"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the most specific and limiting element of Claim 1. The infringement analysis for all accused products will likely hinge on its construction. Practitioners may focus on this term because it moves beyond a mere structural description to include a specific functional capability—attachment during operation—which may not be present in all percussive massagers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's "Summary" section describes a "quick-connection mechanism" without the "while the piston reciprocates" limitation, which could suggest the core of the invention is the mechanism itself, not its use during operation (’482 Patent, col. 2:5-8). Parties arguing for a broader scope may contend that any system allowing for fast attachment meets the spirit of the invention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly includes the "while the piston reciprocates" language. The detailed description further supports this narrow function, stating that the massaging head can be shaped "to allow it to easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 7:10-14). This direct support in the specification for the exact functional language in the claim may provide strong evidence for a narrower construction that requires the dynamic attachment capability.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only "direct infringement" (Compl. ¶11) and does not plead any facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement or allege facts that would typically support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, the prayer for relief requests that the court "declare this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285 and award... attorneys' fees," a remedy often associated with findings of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶5 of Prayer for Relief).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case, filed shortly after the patent’s issuance, appears to be in its earliest stages. The dispute will likely center on the following questions:

  1. A Core Evidentiary Question of Functionality: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused Ekrin massagers are, in fact, "configured to" allow for the attachment of a massage head while the piston is reciprocating? Given the bare-bones nature of the complaint, discovery on the technical operation of the accused devices will be critical.

  2. A Defining Claim Construction Dispute: How will the court construe the functional language of the "quick-connect system" limitation? The case may turn on whether "configured to" requires that the system be intentionally designed for attachment during operation, or merely capable of it, a distinction that will define the scope of the claim and the corresponding infringement analysis.