DCT
2:25-cv-01561
Guangzhou Balan Technology Co Ltd v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Balan Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware) and Hyper Ice, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01561, W.D. Wash., 08/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant directed patent enforcement activities into the district by submitting an infringement complaint to Seattle-based Amazon.com, Inc., regarding products sold there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its massage gun products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to percussive massager technology and/or that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the mechanical design and functionality of handheld percussive massage devices, a popular category of consumer wellness products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this lawsuit was precipitated by an infringement report submitted by Defendant Hyperice to Amazon.com, alleging that Plaintiff's products infringe the patent-in-suit. This action prompted Plaintiff to file for a declaratory judgment to resolve the controversy and prevent its products from being removed from the Amazon marketplace.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | ’933 Patent Priority Date |
| 2025-02-04 | ’933 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-08-15 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
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 (’933 Patent).
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 to be more ergonomic and robust. It describes a specific mechanical layout including a motor driving a piston via a "Scotch yoke" mechanism, with the handle and motor positioned on opposite sides of the piston's longitudinal axis (’933 Patent, col. 4:51-68; Fig. 4). To address overheating, the design incorporates a heat sink in a dedicated cavity with its own airflow path, separate from the motor cavity, to improve heat dissipation (’933 Patent, col. 6:10-34). The patent also discloses a "quick-connect" system, such as one using magnets, to allow for rapid changing of massage heads (’933 Patent, col. 6:48-57).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to create a more durable, user-friendly, and cooler-operating device by separating heat-generating components and simplifying the process of swapping attachments.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 and, by extension, all dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶22, 26).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’933 Patent recites:
- A percussive massager comprising a housing, a piston with a bore at its distal end, and a motor to reciprocate the piston.
- A drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length of the piston.
- A quick-connect system for a massaging head.
- Wherein the quick-connect system allows the head to be inserted or removed "while the piston reciprocates."
- Wherein the drive mechanism comprises a flywheel connected to the motor's output shaft and a crank pin extending from the flywheel to the piston.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 2-15 cannot be infringed if independent claim 1 is not infringed (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Plaintiff’s massage guns, sold under Amazon ASINs B0BCHSHBFL, B0BC166Z67, and B0BC1DVHSD, as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as a percussive massager that requires the device to be powered off before a massage head can be changed (Compl. ¶22). Its head connection mechanism is characterized as a "secure friction/interference and/or twist/press fit" that relies on static alignment (Compl. ¶22, ¶14-16).
- It is further alleged that the Accused Product’s piston stroke length is immutable, having been fixed by its internal geometry during manufacturing, and cannot be adjusted by a user (Compl. ¶23, ¶27).
- Plaintiff alleges that the Amazon marketplace is its "primary sales channel in the United States" and that Defendant's infringement complaint places its listings in "imminent danger of removal" (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its 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 predetermined stroke length at the first speed | The Accused Product must be powered off to change heads. Its friction-fit connection is allegedly not designed for, and would be misaligned by, attempted insertion or removal during reciprocation. | ¶22 | col. 10:11-15 |
| a drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length of the piston | The Accused Product has a stroke length that is permanently fixed at the time of manufacture. Plaintiff argues the patent's specification implies this claim element requires a user-adjustable mechanism for setting or selecting a stroke length, which the Accused Product lacks. | ¶23, ¶25 | col. 10:7-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Operational Question: The primary dispute appears to hinge on whether the Accused Product’s head-attachment mechanism can operate "while the piston reciprocates." The complaint alleges this is unsafe and contrary to the product's design, which requires static alignment for its friction-fit connection (Compl. ¶22). This raises the factual question of whether changing the head during operation is physically possible, even if not intended.
- Scope Question: A key legal question is how to construe the phrase "drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length." Plaintiff argues that in the context of the patent's specification, which discloses a user-adjustable stroke-length embodiment, "determines" should be interpreted to mean "sets" or "selects" (Compl. ¶23). Defendant will likely argue that the phrase should be given its plain meaning, covering any mechanism that results in a fixed, predetermined stroke, including one that is immutable from the time of manufacture.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "while the piston reciprocates"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff's primary non-infringement argument is that its product requires a "stop-to-change" operation for the massage heads, which it contrasts with the claimed functionality (Compl. ¶22, ¶24). The viability of this argument depends on construing this phrase to require the ability to swap heads during continuous, uninterrupted operation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue the term only requires that the system be capable of head removal or insertion during reciprocation, not that it be the standard or recommended procedure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a quick-connect system using magnets and states that the massaging head may have a tapered end "to allow it to easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" ('933 Patent, col. 7:10-13). This language suggests the invention was specifically contemplated to function with the piston in motion, supporting an interpretation that requires concurrent action.
The Term: "determines a predetermined stroke length"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's second non-infringement argument centers on this term. Plaintiff contends its product, which has a single, immutable stroke length, does not have a mechanism that "determines" stroke length in the manner allegedly required by the patent (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "determines" can mean "to fix conclusively or authoritatively." The patent's primary described embodiment uses a Scotch yoke where the stroke length is fixed by the offset of a crank pin, a design that "determines" a single, unchangeable stroke length ('933 Patent, col. 4:46-51; Fig. 4). This supports an interpretation covering fixed-stroke devices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses an alternative embodiment of a "lost motion system" that uses a rotatable cam to "adjust the amount of travel" of the piston, thereby allowing for a variable stroke length ('933 Patent, col. 8:19-36; Fig. 7). Plaintiff may argue this disclosure informs the meaning of "determines," implying a mechanism that provides for selection or adjustment by a user.
VI. Other Allegations
As a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, this action does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement against the defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action will likely focus on two central claim construction issues, which will dictate the outcome of the non-infringement analysis.
A core issue will be one of operational capability: does the claim limitation "while the piston reciprocates" require that a massage head can be safely and effectively swapped during continuous device operation? Or could it be met by a theoretical capability, even if impractical or contrary to user instructions?
A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: does the phrase "a drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length" encompass a mechanism with a single, permanently fixed stroke length, or, in light of the patent's disclosure of a variable-stroke embodiment, must the mechanism allow a user to select or adjust the stroke length?