DCT
2:25-cv-01565
Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, and Hyper Ice, Inc. (Delaware / California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01565, W.D. Wash., 08/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because the defendant, Hyperice, submitted its patent infringement complaint to Amazon.com, Inc., which has a place of business in Seattle, constituting an "extra-judicial patent enforcement" effort directed at the forum.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its massage gun products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to percussive massage devices and/or that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for handheld electronic percussive massage devices, which are used for deep muscle stimulation and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: This action was initiated by the Plaintiff in response to receiving a notice from Amazon.com, which stated that Hyperice had filed a report alleging that Plaintiff's products infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933. This places the Plaintiff's product listings at risk of removal from the Amazon marketplace. The complaint also presents an invalidity case based on several prior art references.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | ’933 Patent Priority Date |
| 2025-02-04 | ’933 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-08-16 | 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification notes that prior art vibrating massage devices suffered from deficiencies such as being "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’933 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld percussive massager designed for improved ergonomics and usability. It features a motor and drive mechanism (such as a Scotch yoke) that converts the motor's rotary motion into the linear, reciprocating motion of a piston (’933 Patent, col. 5:11-14). A key aspect is a "quick-connect system" that allows a user to attach and detach different massage heads from the piston, with the specification noting this can be done without turning off the device (’933 Patent, col. 6:51-57; FIG. 6). The design also incorporates a distinct housing for the motor and a separate, isolated cavity for a heat sink and cooling fan to manage heat dissipation (’933 Patent, col. 5:58-6:40).
- Technical Importance: The claimed configuration addresses user convenience by enabling rapid changes of massage heads and aims to improve device longevity and performance by actively managing heat generated by the motor and drive components.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A housing, a piston, and a motor configured to cause the piston to reciprocate.
- A drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length of the piston.
- A quick-connect system for a massaging head.
- The quick-connect system allows a proximal end of the massaging head to be inserted into or removed from a bore in the piston "while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed."
- A specific drive mechanism comprising a flywheel connected to the motor's output shaft and a crank pin extending from the flywheel to the piston.
- The complaint notes that if claim 1 is not infringed, the dependent claims 2-15 are also not infringed (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies Plaintiff's "massage guns" sold on Amazon under ASINs B083L8RNJR, B0B2Z5JHN4, B089KJTW4V, and B08XB3ZV7X as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product's head connection as relying on 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 (Compl. ¶22). It alleges this design depends on "static alignment" and that attempting to change the head during reciprocation would misalign components (Compl. ¶22).
- The Accused Product's piston stroke length is described as being "fixed by its internal geometry at the time of manufacture," with no mechanism for users to select or change the stroke length (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).
- Plaintiff alleges that the Amazon marketplace is its "primary sales channel in the United States" and that Hyperice's infringement complaint to Amazon threatens its "most significant channel of trade" (Compl. ¶14).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This declaratory judgment action presents allegations of non-infringement. The plaintiff’s positions are summarized below.
’933 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a quick-connect system...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... | The Accused Product must be powered off with the piston at rest to change heads; its connection relies on a static friction/interference fit and is not configured to receive a head while reciprocating. | ¶22, ¶24 | col. 6:51-57 |
| a drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length of the piston... | The Accused Product’s stroke length is immutable and fixed at manufacture; it lacks a mechanism for setting or adjusting stroke length, which Plaintiff argues is what the patent's intrinsic evidence requires. | ¶23, ¶25 | col. 7:21-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute concerns the meaning of "while the piston reciprocates." The complaint argues this requires the ability to swap heads during active operation (Compl. ¶22), a feature it alleges the Accused Product lacks. The court may need to determine if this phrase imposes a strict functional requirement of simultaneous operation and interchangeability.
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises the question of whether the claimed "drive mechanism that determines a predetermined stroke length" covers a mechanism with a single, fixed stroke length. Plaintiff argues that, based on the patent's specification, this term should be construed to mean a mechanism that allows a user to set or adjust the stroke length (Compl. ¶23), which its product allegedly does not have.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "while the piston reciprocates"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is critical to the non-infringement argument. Its construction will determine whether the claim requires the "quick-connect system" to be operable during the piston's motion or if it merely describes the general operational context of the device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff’s primary non-infringement argument rests on its product being a "stop-to-change" design (Compl. ¶24).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "the exemplary quick-connect system 600 may be used without turning off the massaging device 100" (’933 Patent, col. 6:55-57). This language may support an interpretation that the invention was intended to allow for head-swapping during operation.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the phrase simply describes the environment in which the quick-connect system exists—as part of a device whose piston reciprocates—without mandating that the two actions must occur simultaneously.
The Term: "determines a predetermined stroke length"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's second non-infringement argument hinges on this term. The dispute is whether "determines" implies a user's ability to select or adjust the stroke length, or if it can also mean a fixed, factory-set length.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "lost motion system" embodiment (FIG. 7) that can be used to "adjust the throw or the stroke length of the massaging head" (’933 Patent, col. 7:21-24). This may support the plaintiff's view that the patent contemplates an adjustable mechanism.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant could argue that any drive mechanism, including one with a fixed eccentric, inherently "determines" the stroke length by its physical geometry and that the adjustable embodiment is just one example, not a limitation on the claim term itself.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint seeks a declaration that the Plaintiff does not indirectly infringe the ’933 Patent (Compl. ¶24). It does not, however, provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific facts underlying this request.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the limitation "while the piston reciprocates" require that the massage head be physically exchangeable during the device's active operation, or does it merely describe the system's context? The plaintiff's "stop-to-change" product design brings this distinction to the forefront.
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "determines a predetermined stroke length" be construed to cover a device with a single, immutable stroke length fixed at manufacture, or does the patent's disclosure of an adjustable-stroke embodiment limit the claim's scope to devices offering user-selectable stroke lengths?
- Finally, a central question for the case will be validity: do the prior art references cited by the plaintiff—disclosing features such as adjustable-stroke mechanisms, removable heads, and motor-driven reciprocation in handheld massagers—render the specific combination claimed in the ’933 Patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art? (Compl. ¶34-40).