DCT
2:25-cv-01560
Toloco Inc v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Toloco Inc (California)
- Defendant: Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, and Hyper Ice, Inc. (Delaware and California, respectively)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01560, W.D. Wash., 08/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants initiated "extra-judicial patent enforcement" by submitting an infringement complaint to Amazon.com, Inc., which has a place of business in the Western District of Washington, and that these actions form a substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its massage gun product does not infringe Defendant's patent related to percussive massage devices, and/or that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns handheld percussive massage devices, a product category within the consumer health and wellness market designed for deep-muscle stimulation.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant Hyperice filing a patent infringement complaint against Plaintiff Toloco's product with Amazon.com, creating what Toloco alleges is an actual and immediate controversy sufficient to warrant a declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | ’933 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2025-02-04 | ’933 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2025-08-15 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 B1 - Massage device with a releasable connection for a massaging head
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 B1, "Massage device with a releasable connection for a massaging head," issued February 4, 2025.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section states that prior art massaging devices were often "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’933 Patent, col. 1:30-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massager designed for improved ergonomics and thermal management (’933 Patent, Abstract). It features a motor and a handle positioned on opposite sides of the reciprocating piston's longitudinal axis, a drive mechanism such as a Scotch yoke to convert rotary motion to linear motion, and a dedicated heat sink and fan located in a separate housing cavity to dissipate heat (’933 Patent, col. 1:36-43; col. 6:10-29). The patent also describes a "quick-connect" system for attaching and detaching massage heads (’933 Patent, col. 6:53-7:4).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to create a more balanced, cooler, and robust handheld device suitable for prolonged use by separating heat-generating components and improving the drive mechanism's sturdiness (’933 Patent, col. 5:8-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A housing and a piston with a bore at its distal end.
- A motor to reciprocate the piston.
- A drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length of the piston, comprising a flywheel and a crank pin.
- A quick-connect system for a massage head.
- The 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."
- The complaint also notes the non-infringement of dependent claims 2-15 (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Product" is Plaintiff's massage gun, identified by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B089KJTW4V (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is a handheld percussive massager sold primarily through the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶14, 23).
- The complaint alleges two key functional aspects for its non-infringement defense:
- The massage head connection is a "secure friction/interference and/or twist/press fit" that requires the device to be powered off and the piston to be at rest before a head can be changed for proper alignment and safety (Compl. ¶22).
- The product's stroke length is "fixed by its internal geometry at the time of manufacture," and users cannot select or change it (Compl. ¶23).
- The complaint alleges that the Amazon marketplace is Plaintiff's "primary sales channel" and "most significant channel of trade," making the threat of delisting due to an infringement complaint a source of immediate and irreparable harm (Compl. ¶14, 18-20).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its Accused Product does not meet specific limitations of claim 1 of the ’933 Patent.
’933 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Accused Product must be powered off to change heads. Its connection relies on a static friction/press fit, and attempting to change heads during reciprocation would misalign components and is contrary to safety guidance. | ¶22 | col. 10:10-15 |
| a drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The Accused Product's stroke length is fixed at manufacture and is not user-selectable. The complaint argues the patent specification implies "determines" means a mechanism for setting or adjusting the stroke length. | ¶23 | col. 10:6-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the claim phrase "allows... while the piston reciprocates" requires a system specifically designed and intended for safe, on-the-fly head swapping, or if it merely means such an action is physically possible. The Plaintiff argues that its "stop-to-change" design is functionally different and that any other interpretation would vitiate the claim language (Compl. ¶24).
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the operational differences between the claimed magnetic quick-connect system described in the patent (’933 Patent, col. 6:53-7:4) and the Accused Product’s alleged friction/press-fit mechanism. Evidence regarding the feasibility and safety of changing the Accused Product's massage head during operation will be relevant.
- Scope Questions: Another point of contention will be the meaning of a "drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length." The question is whether this phrase, in light of the specification, is limited to mechanisms that allow for user selection or adjustment of stroke length, or if it also reads on a mechanism with a single, fixed stroke length set during manufacturing.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "allows a proximal end of the first massaging head to be inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates"
Context and Importance: This limitation is a primary basis for Plaintiff's non-infringement argument. The definition of "allows... while... reciprocates" will be critical in determining whether the Accused Product's "stop-to-change" design falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes between a device designed for uninterrupted operation during head changes and one that requires stoppage.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not explicitly require that the swapping be safe, easy, or intended by the manufacturer, only that the system "allows" it. The specification describes a magnetic connection system that may physically permit removal against magnetic force even during motion (’933 Patent, col. 6:53-7:4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues that in the Accused Product, attempting a change during motion is "contrary to the device's intended use and safety guidance," suggesting "allows" should be interpreted to mean "permits in a manner consistent with the device's proper function" (Compl. ¶22).
The Term: "a drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length"
Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of Plaintiff’s second non-infringement argument. The dispute will center on whether "determines" implies a user-selectable function or simply a factory-set dimension.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 8 states that an "offset between the flywheel axis and an axis of the crank pin determines the predetermined stroke length," which describes how a fixed-geometry crank mechanism establishes a single, non-variable stroke (’933 Patent, col. 10:45-48). This suggests "determines" can mean "establishes" or "fixes."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint points to the patent’s detailed description of a "lost motion system" for "varying the stroke of the piston," which is a user-adjustable mechanism (’933 Patent, Fig. 7, col. 7:22-26). Plaintiff argues this disclosure narrows the scope of "determines" to mechanisms that actively set or adjust stroke length, not those with a permanently fixed stroke (Compl. ¶23).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for indirect infringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, but does not plead specific facts related to inducement or contributory infringement beyond a general denial (Compl. ¶29).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged in the traditional sense, as the patent holder is the defendant. However, the Plaintiff requests that the case be found "exceptional" and seeks damages and attorney fees, alleging that Defendant's infringement reports to Amazon were "baseless" and improper (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶F, G).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on two central claim construction disputes, which will likely define the scope of the infringement analysis.
- A core issue will be one of operational capability: does the claim limitation "allows... while the piston reciprocates" require a system specifically designed for safe, in-motion head replacement, or does it broadly cover any connection where removal during operation is physically possible, irrespective of safety or intended use?
- A second key question will be one of definitional scope: does the phrase "determines a predetermined stroke length," when read in light of the entire patent, encompass a device with a single, factory-set stroke length, or is its meaning limited by the specification's disclosure of an adjustable stroke mechanism to only include devices with user-selectable stroke options?