DCT
2:25-cv-01602
Shenzhen Zhanjiang Technology Co Ltd v. Hyper Ice Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Zhanjiang Technology Co., Ltd. (d/b/a BaoQTN) (China)
- Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and DataFeel Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01602, W.D. Wash., 08/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendants directed "extra-judicial patent enforcement" efforts to Amazon.com, Inc., which maintains a place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its electronic cupping device does not infringe Defendants' patent for a multi-modal therapeutic device, and/or that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable therapeutic devices designed to apply various forms of energy to a user's skin to communicate information or provide treatment.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was initiated after Defendant Hyperice filed a patent infringement report with Amazon.com, leading to the removal of Plaintiff's accused product from the e-commerce platform.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-10-23 | ’174 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2024-03-19 | ’174 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2025-08-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,931,174 - "Communication Devices, Methods, And Systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,931,174, "Communication Devices, Methods, And Systems," issued March 19, 2024 (the "’174 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the health problems associated with excessive screen time, such as eyestrain, and identifies a need for alternative, non-visual methods of person-to-computer communication (’174 Patent, col. 1:31-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that communicates with a user by applying various forms of energy to the skin. It comprises a body with a processing unit and a "plurality of energy generators" capable of outputting "different energy types" (e.g., impact, heat, electrical shock, pressure) to create tactile signals or symbols on the skin (’174 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:11-14). The device may feature a housing with insulating material to direct these energies toward the skin and limit their flow elsewhere (’174 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology proposes leveraging the body's tactile sensory system as an alternative channel for information intake, thereby reducing reliance on visual screens (’174 Patent, col. 1:44-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint contests independent claims 1, 11, and 18 (’174 Patent, col. 41:16-42:51; Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, 26).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a treatment device with:
- A body containing a processing unit.
- A plurality of generator elements that are "independently operable to output different energy types."
- A removable housing that includes an "insulating material for permitting flows of the different energy types toward the area of skin and limiting" flows elsewhere.
- Independent Claim 11 recites a treatment device with:
- A body with a processing unit.
- A plurality of generator elements that are "independently operable to output different energy types."
- A housing with an interior surface.
- A "separator defining and maintaining a space" between the generator elements and the housing's interior surface.
- Independent Claim 18 recites a treatment device with:
- A body with a processing unit and a rechargeable battery.
- A plurality of generator elements that "independently operable convert electricity... to a plurality of different energy types."
- A removable housing with "insulating material" to direct energy flow.
- A processing unit configured to "modify an intensity" of at least one energy type.
- The complaint also asserts non-infringement of dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20, which rely on the asserted independent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25, 27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff's "Electronic Cupping Device," identified by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B0FB2F8NFM (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as a device that provides only a single type of energy—thermal—via three heating LEDs (Compl. ¶23). It alleges that these LEDs are "ganged and cannot be operated independently" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint includes a photograph of the device, which shows a main body and a transparent, cup-shaped housing (Compl. p. 6). A second photograph provides an interior view of the three elements described as "Heating lamp"s (Compl. p. 7).
- Plaintiff alleges that Amazon.com is its "primary sales channel" in the United States and that the removal of its product listing has caused "immediate and irreparable harm" (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following chart summarizes the Plaintiff's key arguments for why its product does not meet the limitations of Claim 1.
’174 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of generator elements disposed within the body and being independently operable to output different energy types | The Accused Product provides only a single energy type (thermal) via three "ganged" heating LEDs that "cannot be operated independently." | ¶23 | col. 17:11-14 |
| wherein the housing includes an insulating material for permitting flows of the different energy types toward the area of skin and limiting flows of the different energy types outside the housing | The product's transparent cup housing lacks an insulating structure and allows heat to dissipate outside the housing. A photograph shows this transparent housing. | ¶23; p. 6 | col. 2:8-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "different energy types." The question is whether this term requires distinct physical modalities (e.g., thermal vs. mechanical), as the complaint implies, or if it could be construed more broadly to include different operational modes of a single energy form.
- Scope Questions: The meaning of "independently operable" will be critical. This raises the question of whether the claim requires each generator element to be individually addressable and controllable, or if coordinated control of "ganged" elements to produce varied outputs could fall within the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's assertion that the transparent housing is not an "insulating material" raises a factual question about the material's properties and function. The analysis may turn on whether the housing, in practice, meets the claim's functional requirement of "permitting flows... toward" the skin while "limiting flows... outside," regardless of whether it is a conventional insulator.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "independently operable"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the non-infringement argument, as Plaintiff alleges its "ganged" LEDs are not independently operable. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term requires individual electronic control of each generator or allows for more systemic, coordinated control.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee may argue that the term relates to the device's ability to create varied outputs, such as the "scroll[ing]" of symbols across the skin, which implies differential activation over time, even if the hardware elements are linked (’174 Patent, col. 2:42-46).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a controller that selects "one of the output commands" and causes "one or more of the plurality of generator elements to output" the energy (’174 Patent, col. 3:9-14). Plaintiff may argue this language suggests the ability to address and control individual elements or specific subsets, which it alleges its product cannot do.
The Term: "different energy types"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's core assertion is that its product delivers only a single (thermal) energy type, failing this limitation. The construction of this term will likely determine whether the Accused Product can infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly quantify the required degree of difference. A patentee could suggest that distinct modes of thermal energy (e.g., pulsed, variable intensity) intended to convey different signals could qualify as "different energy types" in the context of the invention's communicative purpose.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a list of exemplary generator elements that produce physically distinct energies: "an impact generator element; a heat generator element; a shock generator element; and a pressure generator element" (’174 Patent, col. 17:11-14). Further, dependent claim 2 explicitly recites a heat, impact, and/or pressure generator, reinforcing the argument that "different energy types" refers to different physical modalities (’174 Patent, col. 41:59-63).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that the Accused Product does not indirectly infringe the ’174 Patent but does not set forth the patent holder's specific factual allegations or legal theories for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "independently operable" and "different energy types," which are described in the patent's specification with reference to distinct, individually controlled modalities like heat and impact, be construed broadly enough to read on an accused device that allegedly uses only "ganged" thermal LEDs?
- A key question will be one of functional performance: does the Accused Product's transparent housing meet the claim's functional requirement of an "insulating material" that directs energy toward the skin while limiting its escape, or does its operation, as alleged, primarily permit heat dissipation, creating a mismatch in technical function?