Shanghai Jinsenhui E Commerce Co Ltd v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shanghai Jinsenhui E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: Shanghai Jinsenhui E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, 2:26-cv-3684, W.D. Wash., 09/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant Hyperice purposefully availed itself of the forum by repeatedly using Amazon's APEX patent enforcement process, which is governed by agreements that allegedly select Washington law and courts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its percussion massager product does not infringe Defendant's patent on a massage device and that the asserted patent claims are invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to hand-held percussive massagers, a consumer device category used for deep-muscle stimulation and therapeutic relief.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action arises from Defendant's accusation of infringement made through Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. The complaint notes that the patent’s key "Quick-Connect Limitation" was previously construed in a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a decision which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The complaint also notes that Claim 17 of the patent-in-suit has been statutorily disclaimed.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-07-01	U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 Priority Date
2024-03-26	U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 Issue Date
2026-05-11	PTAB Final Written Decision in PGR2025-00013
2026-06-17	Appeal of PTAB Decision Filed with Federal Circuit
2026-09-09	Defendant Executes Amazon APEX Agreement
2026-09-10	Amazon Notifies Plaintiff of Infringement Assertion
2026-09-30	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 - "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082, "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length," issued March 26, 2024 (the "'082 Patent"). Compl. ¶13

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art massaging devices as suffering from deficiencies such as being "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time." (’082 Patent, col. 1:29-34)
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand-held percussive massager designed to address these issues. A key feature described in the specification is a "quick-connect system" that allows a user to attach and detach different massaging heads. The patent details a magnetic system intended to permit this swapping of heads quickly, even "while the piston... is moving." ’082 Patent, col. 6:51-57 ’082 Patent, col. 7:8-12 The design also includes a drive mechanism and an isolated cooling system. ’082 Patent, col. 5:1-12 ’082 Patent, col. 5:58-6:49
• Technical Importance: The ability to change applicator heads while the device is operational could enhance user convenience and allow for more dynamic and varied therapeutic sessions without interruption. Compl. ¶16

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint’s non-infringement and invalidity counts focus on claim 7, which depends on independent claim 1, and also address independent claim 18. Compl. ¶¶26-28
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • a housing;
  • a piston with a bore at its distal end;
  • a motor to reciprocate the piston;
  • a drive mechanism controlling the piston's stroke length; and
  • a quick-connect system for a massaging head, "configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates." Compl. ¶15
• The complaint alleges that independent claim 18 recites a materially similar requirement. Compl. ¶22

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Product" is a hand-held percussion massager sold by the Plaintiff on Amazon.com under ASIN B08TLWYKLS. Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶20

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product’s massaging-head interface consists of a mechanical interference-fit connection. Compl. ¶3 Specifically, an "elastic fit ring" on the massaging-head shaft engages the piston bore via "radial interference and friction." Compl. ¶20 The complaint asserts this design requires "deliberate axial force" to attach or detach the head and is intended for use only when the motor is stopped, not while the piston is reciprocating. Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶23 The product is sold directly to consumers in the United States through the Amazon seller storefront "JINSENHUI." Compl. ¶5

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The central dispute concerns whether the Accused Product's friction-fit head attachment system meets the "Quick-Connect Limitation" of the ’082 Patent.

’082 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Functionality (per Complaint)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head, wherein the quick-connect system is configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed.	The Accused Product uses a friction-based interference fit with an elastic ring. This interface requires "deliberate axial force" for head changes and is designed for use when the motor is stopped, not while the piston is reciprocating.	¶3; ¶23	col. 6:51-68

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the claim term "configured to have... inserted into or removed... while the piston reciprocates" requires a system specifically designed for that purpose, or if it can read on a system where such an operation is merely physically possible, though difficult or not intended.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint draws a sharp technical distinction between the patent's described low-force magnetic coupling and the Accused Product's high-force friction-fit interface. Compl. ¶22 A key factual question will be whether the Accused Product’s interface is, in fact, "not specially designed or adapted for controlled insertion or removal while the piston is reciprocating," as the complaint alleges. Compl. ¶23 This raises further questions about infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, as Plaintiff argues that finding equivalence would vitiate an express claim limitation. Compl. ¶27

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a quick-connect system... configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates"
• Context and Importance: The interpretation of this limitation, which the complaint refers to as the "Quick-Connect Limitation," is dispositive of the non-infringement argument. Compl. ¶16 The Plaintiff's entire case for non-infringement hinges on proving its friction-fit system falls outside the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction was central to a prior PTAB proceeding, which found it to mean the system must be "specially designed and adapted" for this function, not merely capable of it. Compl. ¶19
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope may point to the plain language of claim 1 itself, which does not explicitly limit the "quick-connect system" to a specific mechanism like magnets. ’082 Patent, col. 9:55-10:14 They might argue the word "configured" should be given its ordinary meaning of being shaped or arranged for a purpose, which could potentially include a friction-fit system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope will likely highlight the specification's detailed description of a magnetic connection as the preferred embodiment. ’082 Patent, col. 6:58-68 They would also emphasize language describing the head's geometry (e.g., "rounded, pointed or tapered") as being chosen to "allow it to easily slip into the opening" while the piston is moving, suggesting a low-force, purpose-built system that contrasts with a "deliberate... force" friction-fit. ’082 Patent, col. 7:8-12 The PTAB's prior construction requiring the system be "specially designed and adapted" strongly supports this narrower view. Compl. ¶19

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts that because the Accused Product does not meet the "during-reciprocation" configuration, it does not directly infringe. Compl. ¶¶24-25 Consequently, it argues there can be no underlying direct infringement on which a claim for indirect infringement could be based. Compl. ¶28
• Willful Infringement: Not applicable, as this is a declaratory judgment action brought by the accused infringer.

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

This case presents a focused dispute over patent scope and its interplay with prior art, raising several key questions for the court:

• Claim Construction and Precedent: A central issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the "Quick-Connect Limitation"? Specifically, will it adopt the PTAB's "specially designed and adapted" construction, and can a friction-fit interface that allegedly requires "deliberate axial force" and is intended for static changes meet that standard?
• Infringement and Doctrine of Equivalents: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional distinction: does the Accused Product's friction-fit system operate in a substantially different way from the claimed invention, particularly regarding the "while the piston reciprocates" limitation? Plaintiff argues that finding equivalence would vitiate this express requirement, a question the court must resolve. Compl. ¶27
• Validity Contingency: The case raises a classic invalidity squeeze: Plaintiff argues in the alternative that if the claims are interpreted broadly enough to cover its conventional friction-fit product, they are rendered obvious by prior art that discloses such mechanisms. Compl. ¶¶44-46 The court will have to determine if the patentee can define its claims broadly enough to prove infringement without simultaneously making them vulnerable to invalidity.