DCT
6:24-cv-00034
Hyper Ice Inc v. Worldwide Golf Shops LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Worldwide Golf Shops LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scheef & Stone, LLP; Miller Barondess LLP
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00034, W.D. Tex., 04/15/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the District and maintains a regular and established place of business there, including at least one physical retail store.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various Therabody-branded percussive massage devices infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and features of such devices.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technology of handheld electronic percussive massage guns, a popular category of consumer health and wellness devices used for muscle recovery and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is part of a family of applications dating back to 2013. The complaint notes that Plaintiff's own "Hypervolt" line of products, sold since at least 2018, are covered by the patent, potentially setting up a direct competitor dispute.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | Priority Date for ’482 Patent (Provisional App. 61/841,693) |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff Hyperice begins selling its Hypervolt products (approximate date) |
| 2024-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 Issues |
| 2024-04-15 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482, "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length," issued January 2, 2024 (the ’482 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior art vibrating massagers suffer from several deficiencies, including being bulky, generating excessive heat, producing significant noise, and being difficult to use for extended periods (’482 Patent, col. 1:28-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massage device designed to address these problems. The solution involves a specific mechanical arrangement, including a motor that drives a piston in a reciprocating motion via a drive mechanism, with a massage head attached to the piston (’482 Patent, col. 1:41-48). Key aspects described in the specification include a design where the motor and handle are on opposite sides of the piston's longitudinal axis for balance, a heat sink to dissipate heat, and a quick-connect system for easily changing massage heads (’482 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:36-40; col. 2:5-9).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to create a more ergonomic, quieter, and cooler-operating device, enhancing its usability for consumers and professionals during prolonged massage sessions (’482 Patent, col. 1:28-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 34 (’482 Patent, col. 12:1-19; Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 34 are:
- a housing;
- a piston in the housing having a proximal end and a distal end;
- 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;
- a drive mechanism between the motor and the piston that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- a quick release connector at the distal end of the piston, wherein the quick release connector is configured to secure a first massaging head while the piston reciprocates a predetermined stroke length at the first speed, wherein the first massaging head has a substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 34," which suggests the right to assert other claims is preserved (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the Therabody Theragun Pro, Therabody Theragun Mini, Therabody Theragun Relief, Therabody Theragun Sense, and Therabody TheraFace PRO percussive massage devices (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "battery-powered percussive massagers" that are offered for sale and sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶13, ¶17). The complaint references representative claim charts in Exhibits 2-5, which were not provided with the analyzed court filing, and thus no further technical detail on the operation of the accused products is available from the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the accused products' market share or commercial importance beyond their sale by the Defendant.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 34) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing | The complaint alleges the accused products include a housing. | ¶17(a) | col. 3:35-36 |
| a piston in the housing having a proximal end and a distal end | The complaint alleges the accused products include a piston with a proximal and distal end. | ¶17(b) | col. 4:46-47 |
| 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 include a motor that is at least partially within the housing and drives the piston to reciprocate. | ¶17(c) | col. 3:40-41 |
| a drive mechanism between the motor and the piston that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The complaint alleges the accused products include a drive mechanism controlling a predetermined stroke length. | ¶17(d) | col. 5:14-16 |
| a quick release connector at the distal end of the piston, wherein the quick release connector is configured to secure a first massaging head... wherein the first massaging head has a substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector | The complaint alleges the accused products include a quick release connector for securing a massaging head that has a substantially cylindrical pocket. | ¶17(e) | col. 6:46-52; col. 6:62-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on non-public claim charts (Compl. ¶13, Exhibits 2-5). A central issue will be the factual evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the internal components and operation of the accused Therabody products map onto the specific elements of Claim 34.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products’ attachment mechanism meets all limitations of the claimed "quick release connector," including the requirement that the massaging head itself has a "substantially cylindrical pocket to receive the quick release connector"? The specific interaction between the piston and head attachment will be a key factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "quick release connector"
Context and Importance: This term is central to a key user-facing feature. The infringement analysis for element 34(e) depends entirely on whether the mechanism used by the accused Therabody products to attach massaging heads falls within the proper construction of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary refers generally to a "quick-connection mechanism" for "releasably connectable" massaging heads, language that a party could argue supports a functional definition covering any mechanism that allows for fast, tool-less head changes (’482 Patent, col. 2:5-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a specific embodiment of the "quick-connect system 600" that uses magnets to hold the massaging head in place (’482 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 6:56-66). A party could argue that the term should be limited to this magnetic implementation or mechanisms with very similar structural properties, especially given the claim’s requirement that the head has a pocket to receive the connector.
The Term: "drive mechanism ... that controls a predetermined stroke length"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanical linkage that converts the motor's rotation into the piston's therapeutic motion. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused products' internal powertrain is structurally and functionally equivalent to what is claimed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "drive mechanism" itself is generic. A party might argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any mechanical linkage that achieves the claimed function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific "Scotch yoke" type of mechanism, where an offset crank pin on a flywheel drives the piston, and the offset itself controls the stroke length (’482 Patent, col. 5:14-16; col. 11:26-30). A party could argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to be consistent with this disclosed embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's allegations in Count 1 and paragraph 17 focus on direct infringement. It does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶15-17).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’482 Patent "By no later than the date this of the filing of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶14). The allegation is that any continuing infringement is willful, intentional, and constitutes a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two primary questions:
A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint provides only conclusory allegations, what factual evidence will Plaintiff produce in discovery to demonstrate that the various accused Therabody products, with their potentially different internal designs, each contain a "drive mechanism" and "quick release connector" that meet the specific structural and functional limitations of Claim 34?
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "quick release connector", which the patent illustrates with a specific magnetic embodiment, be construed broadly enough to read on the attachment mechanisms used in the accused products? The court's construction of this term will likely be a dispositive issue for infringement.