Therabody Inc v. Hyper Ice Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: RENNER OTTO; Byron Raphael LLP
• Case Identification: Therabody, Inc. v. Hyper Ice, Inc., 8:26-cv-00003, C.D. Cal., 02/25/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s percussive massage device infringes a patent related to the specific mechanical and geometric arrangement of the motor, handle, and reciprocating push rod.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer health and wellness market, specifically concerning handheld electronic devices designed for percussive muscle therapy.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter, including a claim chart for the patent-in-suit, on December 10, 2025. The original complaint was filed on January 2, 2026, and the operative pleading is the Amended Complaint filed on February 25, 2026.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-01-01	Theragun G1 launched by Therabody
2018-12-26	’919 Patent Priority Date
2025-08-26	’919 Patent Issued
2025-12-10	Pre-suit notice letter sent to Hyperice
2026-01-02	Original Complaint Filed
2026-02-25	Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,396,919 - "Percussive Therapy Device With Electrically Connected Attachment"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that conventional massage devices can provide "ineffective massages that are superficial" and that percussive devices are "often used in an ineffective manner," indicating a need for improved device design and automation for effective therapy (ʻ919 Patent, col. 2:54-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a percussive therapy device with a specific ergonomic and mechanical layout. The patent describes a three-handle design that cooperates to form a central opening, allowing a user to grasp the device from different angles to more easily reach various body parts, such as the back (ʻ919 Patent, col. 5:15-33). The asserted claim focuses on the geometric relationship between the motor, a handle portion, and the reciprocating output shaft, which is configured at an obtuse angle relative to the handle.
• Technical Importance: The claimed design appears to address ergonomic challenges, enabling users to self-administer therapy more effectively across their entire body by providing multiple grip options and an angled head (ʻ919 Patent, col. 5:25-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’919 Patent (Compl. ¶34). The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • A percussive therapy device with a housing, a handle portion, and a motor.
  • An eccentric shaft that travels in a circle in response to motor activation.
  • A push rod assembly connected to the motor that reciprocates, with an output shaft traveling along a reciprocation axis.
  • A specific geometric relationship where:
    • the reciprocation axis is transverse to the handle portion on a "dividing plane" normal to the motor axis.
    • the push rod's connection to the eccentric shaft is offset from this dividing plane.
    • the motor extends transverse to the handle portion on the opposite side of the dividing plane.
    • an interior angle between the handle portion and the output shaft is "obtuse."
  • An attachment connected to the output shaft.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but standard practice allows for such amendments.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "Hypervolt Go 2" percussion massage device (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Hypervolt Go 2 is a "percussive therapy system" that includes the device and at least one attachment (Compl. ¶22). Its relevant functionality, as alleged, includes a housing, a handle, a motor that outputs torque, an eccentric shaft, and a push rod assembly that reciprocates to provide percussive massage (Compl. ¶¶23-30).
• The complaint positions the accused product as a direct competitor to Therabody's own line of massage devices (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’919 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a percussive therapy device comprising: a housing; a handle portion; a motor positioned in the housing and configured to output torque about a motor axis; an eccentric shaft configured to travel in a circle about a motor axis in response to activation of the motor	The Hypervolt Go 2 is a percussive therapy device that includes a housing, a handle portion, a motor positioned in the housing that outputs torque, and an eccentric shaft that travels in a circle upon motor activation (Compl. ¶¶23-27).	¶¶23-27	col. 14:56-69
a push rod assembly operatively connected to the motor and configured to reciprocate in response to activation of the motor, wherein the push rod assembly comprises an output shaft configured to travel along a reciprocation axis when the push rod assembly reciprocates, and wherein the reciprocation axis extends transverse to the handle portion on a dividing plane normal to the motor axis	The Hypervolt Go 2 includes a push rod assembly connected to the motor that reciprocates. This assembly includes an output shaft that travels along a reciprocation axis that extends transverse to the handle portion on a dividing plane normal to the motor axis (Compl. ¶28).	¶28	col. 33:30-49
a proximal end of the push rod assembly is connected to the eccentric shaft at a location offset from the dividing plane in a first direction, wherein the motor extends transverse to the handle portion and away from the dividing plane in a second direction opposite the first direction, and an interior angle defined between the handle portion and the output shaft is obtuse	The Hypervolt Go 2’s push rod assembly allegedly has a proximal end connected to the eccentric shaft offset from the dividing plane. The motor allegedly extends transverse to the handle away from the dividing plane in the opposite direction. The angle between the handle portion and output shaft is alleged to be obtuse (Compl. ¶29).	¶29	col. 33:30-49
an attachment configured to be operatively connected to the output shaft of the percussive therapy device	The Hypervolt Go 2 system includes an attachment that connects to the output shaft of the device (Compl. ¶30).	¶30	col. 1:5-8

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the construction of the claim's precise geometric limitations. A key question for the court will be how to define and identify "a dividing plane normal to the motor axis" within the accused device. The analysis will also depend on whether the measured "interior angle" between the handle and output shaft of the accused product is definitively "obtuse" (i.e., greater than 90 degrees).
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide to support the assertion that the Hypervolt Go 2 meets these specific spatial relationships? The complaint makes conclusory allegations mapping the claim language to the product (Compl. ¶¶28-29), but the technical proof of these geometric properties will be a central point of discovery and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a dividing plane normal to the motor axis"

  • Context and Importance: This term is a critical geometric constraint that defines the fundamental layout of the claimed device. Infringement depends entirely on whether this abstract plane can be found in the accused product in the exact relationship to the motor axis and handle portion as required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not a physical component but an abstract spatial relationship, making it a potential area for non-infringement arguments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in mechanical engineering—an abstract geometric plane used as a reference.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific arrangement shown in figures such as FIG. 1, which illustrates a particular orientation of the components, could be used to argue that the "dividing plane" is limited to a configuration consistent with that specific depicted embodiment.

• The Term: "obtuse"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the angle between the handle and the output shaft. If the angle in the accused device is 90 degrees or less, there is no literal infringement of this element. It is a simple yet potentially dispositive limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "obtuse" is an angle greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. The patent does not provide any language to suggest a different meaning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be limited by the embodiments shown in the patent's figures, but without explicit limiting language in the specification, this argument may face challenges. The claim recites the term without further qualification.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶36). It asserts that Defendant knew of the ’919 Patent and its alleged infringement by at least December 10, 2025, the date Plaintiff sent a notice letter with a claim chart (Compl. ¶¶17-18). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's continued sales after receiving notice and after the filing of the original complaint constitute "willful, intentional" infringement "made with conscious disregard for the '919 Patent" (Compl. ¶19).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of geometric infringement: can Plaintiff prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the physical construction of the Hypervolt Go 2 meets the precise, mathematically defined spatial relationships recited in Claim 1? The case will likely involve detailed expert analysis concerning the location of the "dividing plane" and the measurement of the angle between the handle and output shaft.
• A secondary but significant question will be one of willfulness and damages: Assuming infringement is found, can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's conduct rose to the level of willfulness, which would support a claim for enhanced damages? The outcome will depend on evidence related to Defendant's actions after receiving the pre-suit notice letter on December 10, 2025.