Shenzhen Zeshi E Commerce Co Ltd v. Hyper Ice Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Zeshi E-commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and DataFeel, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00801, W.D. Wash., 03/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendants purposefully directed patent enforcement activities at Amazon, which is headquartered in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including the submission of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) agreement, occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Heating Pad for Back" product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,318,221 and/or that the patent is invalid, following Defendants' assertion of the patent against Plaintiff through Amazon's enforcement program.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on wearable therapeutic devices capable of delivering multiple treatment modalities, such as heat and electrical energy, to a user's skin.
• Key Procedural History: The litigation was precipitated by Defendants initiating an enforcement action on or about February 17, 2026, through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. This action created, in Plaintiff's view, a justiciable controversy regarding infringement and validity, compelling the filing of this declaratory judgment complaint to avoid removal of its product listing from the Amazon marketplace.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,318,221 - "Communication Devices, Systems and Methods"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,318,221, "Communication Devices, Systems and Methods," issued June 3, 2025 (the "'221 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the negative health effects of excessive screen time, such as eyestrain, and posits a need for alternative, non-visual means for person-to-computer communication to reduce this dependency '221 Patent, col. 1:40-58
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication device that interfaces with a user's skin to transmit information through nerves '221 Patent, col. 1:53-58 It comprises a wearable body with a plurality of "energy generators" that can output various forms of energy-such as electrical energy, heat, or impact-in a signal directed toward the skin to communicate data '221 Patent, abstract '221 Patent, col. 2:1-12 These generators can be independently operated to convey complex information, for example, by creating symbols or patterns on the skin '221 Patent, col. 2:42-55
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a haptic communication channel, leveraging the body's non-optical nerves to receive data, thereby offering an alternative to screen-based information consumption '221 Patent, col. 1:53-58

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 8, and 14 as being at issue Compl. ¶¶24-29
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A treatment device, comprising:
  • a wearable body having a distal surface, a proximal surface, and an attachment element arranged to removably attach the wearable body to skin of a user;
  • an electrical generator element and a heat generator element coupled to the wearable body, the electrical generator element and the heat generator element being independently operable to output and communicate an electrical energy to muscles and pain receptors of the user, and to output and communicate a heat flux to temperature receptors of the user;
  • wherein the distal surface of the wearable body comprises a material configured to direct the electrical energy and/or the heat flux to an area of the skin.
• Independent Claim 8:
  • A treatment device, comprising:
  • a wearable body having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface comprising a biocompatible adhesive material arranged to removably attach the wearable body to an area of skin of a user;
  • a power source including a rechargeable battery; and
  • an electrical generator element and a heat generator element coupled to the wearable body, being independently operable to convert electricity from the power source into an electrical energy (communicated to muscles and pain receptors) and into a heat flux (communicated to temperature receptors).
• Independent Claim 14:
  • A treatment device, comprising:
  • a wearable body with an attachment element arranged to removably attach the body to an area of skin;
  • a power source including a rechargeable battery;
  • an electrical generator element and a heat generator element, independently operable to convert electricity from the power source into electrical energy (for muscles/pain receptors) and heat flux (for temperature receptors);
  • wherein the distal surface comprises a material configured to direct the electrical energy and/or heat flux to an area of the skin.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are also not infringed Compl. ¶¶13, 10, 9

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Heating Pad for Back," identified on Amazon by ASIN B0FMF2KP9P Compl. ¶23

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint characterizes the Accused Product as a "conventional wraparound lumbar brace" that is secured by straps and Velcro Compl. ¶28
• Its functionality is described as providing heat and mechanical vibration Compl. ¶28 The complaint explicitly denies that the product contains any structure capable of delivering electrical stimulation to a user, such as an electrode, conductive pad, EMS module, or TENS module Compl. ¶¶28, 3-6
• The complaint alleges that the Amazon marketplace is the Plaintiff's primary sales channel in the United States Compl. ¶22

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff alleges non-infringement. The following chart summarizes the Plaintiff's non-infringement positions for the representative independent claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'221 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the Accused Product's mechanical vibration function can be considered an "electrical generator element" that "communicate[s] an electrical energy to muscles and pain receptors." The complaint argues it cannot, framing the claimed element as requiring direct electrical stimulation (e.g., TENS) rather than mechanical action Compl. ¶¶28, 30
  • Scope Questions: A central claim scope question is whether the term "attachment element" in Claim 1 is broad enough to read on the "straps and Velcro" of the Accused Product. The complaint contrasts this with a "skin-adhered" device, suggesting a narrower interpretation is required (Compl. ¶30). The construction of this term relative to the more specific "biocompatible adhesive material" in Claim 8 may be a focus of the dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electrical generator element ... [that] output[s] and communicate[s] an electrical energy to muscles and pain receptors of the user"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central point of the non-infringement argument. The Plaintiff contends its product's vibration motor does not meet this limitation, which it construes as requiring a device capable of direct electrical stimulation like TENS or EMS Compl. ¶28 The case may turn on whether "communicate an electrical energy" can encompass the effects of a vibration motor or if it is limited to technologies that apply a current to the body.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the general term "energy generators" throughout '221 Patent, col. 2:4 A defendant might argue that a vibration motor is an electromechanical device that communicates energy to the user, and that "electrical energy" could refer to the input to the motor rather than the output modality.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies communication of "electrical energy to muscles and pain receptors," which strongly implies direct electrostimulation '221 Patent, claim 1 The specification explicitly lists a "shock generator element" with "electric contacts" as an example embodiment, which supports a narrower construction focused on applying current to the skin '221 Patent, col. 19:4-12

• The Term: "attachment element arranged to removably attach the wearable body to skin of a user"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff argues its "straps and Velcro" brace is distinct from the claimed invention, which it characterizes as a "skin-adhered treatment device" Compl. ¶¶28, 30 The scope of "attachment element" is therefore critical.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad. The specification discloses embodiments including a "garment" and an "elastic portion," which could support a construction that includes straps and wraps '221 Patent, col. 3:52-54 '221 Patent, col. 2:31-36 The doctrine of claim differentiation may suggest that because Claim 8 specifically recites a "biocompatible adhesive material," the broader term in Claim 1 should not be limited to adhesives.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract describes an "attachment element arranged to removably attach the wearable body to skin of a user," and Claim 8 explicitly claims an adhesive '221 Patent, abstract '221 Patent, claim 8 Plaintiff's argument appears to be that the overall context of the patent points toward a more direct skin-adhered or closely conforming device, rather than a conventional brace.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement by the Plaintiff. As a declaratory judgment action, it seeks a declaration of non-infringement Compl. ¶34 The complaint also requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to attorneys' fees, based on allegations that Defendants' infringement claims are "objectively baseless" and constitute "bad-faith enforcement efforts" Compl. ¶¶3, 15 Compl. Prayer for Relief D

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court's determination of several key issues, framed by the complaint's allegations of non-infringement and invalidity.

• A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Can the claim term "electrical generator element... communicat[ing] an electrical energy to muscles and pain receptors" be construed to encompass a mechanical vibration motor? The Plaintiff's case for non-infringement appears to heavily rely on a narrow construction that limits this term to direct electrical stimulation technologies.
• A second issue concerns claim construction and differentiation: Does the broad term "attachment element" in Claim 1 read on a conventional brace with straps and Velcro? The court's interpretation will be informed by the narrower recitation of a "biocompatible adhesive material" in Claim 8 and disclosures of garments and elastic bands in the specification.
• A final question will be one of validity: The complaint makes broad allegations of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, citing several prior art references that allegedly disclose combinations of treatment modalities like heat, vibration, and electrical stimulation in portable, skin-facing devices Compl. ¶¶38-46 The viability of these invalidity challenges will depend on a detailed comparison of the prior art to the specific limitations of the asserted claims.