DCT

2:26-cv-03686

Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co Ltd v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-03686, W.D. Wash., 09/30/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper because Defendant Hyperice repeatedly invoked Amazon’s APEX patent-enforcement process, which involves agreements selecting Washington law and courts, creating a substantial connection between the controversy and the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its percussion massagers do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to a quick-connect mechanism for massage heads, and that the patent claims are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to hand-held percussive massage devices, a popular category of consumer electronics used for muscle therapy and recovery.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was triggered by Defendant’s accusation of infringement against Plaintiff’s products through Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. A key claim limitation at issue was previously construed in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding involving the same patent owner but a different petitioner (Therabody, Inc.); that PTAB decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 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 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082
2024-03-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 Issues
2026-05-11 PTAB Issues Final Written Decision in PGR2025-00013
2026-06-17 Appeal of PTAB Decision Filed with the Federal Circuit
2026-09-09 Defendant Executes APEX Agreement Accusing Plaintiff's Products
2026-09-10 Amazon Notifies Plaintiff of Defendant's Infringement Assertion
2026-09-30 Plaintiff Files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that prior art massaging devices can be "bulky, get very hot, are noisy and/or are difficult to use for extended periods of time" (’082 Patent, col. 1:29-34). The invention focuses on improving the user experience, particularly regarding the interchangeability of massage heads.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a percussive massager with a "quick-connect system" that is "configured to have a proximal end of the first massaging head inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates" ’082 Patent, claim 1 One embodiment detailed in the specification uses a magnetic attraction between a magnet in the piston bore and a corresponding magnet in the massage head shaft to retain the head, while allowing for quick removal and replacement even while the device is operating ’082 Patent, col. 6:58-col. 7:14 ’082 Patent, FIG. 6
  • Technical Importance: This solution allows users to swap different massage applicators without stopping the device's motor, which may enhance convenience and the efficiency of a massage session.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses on claim 7, which depends on independent claim 1 Compl. ¶14 It also addresses independent method claim 18 Compl. ¶28 Hyperice specifically asserted claim 7 in the underlying APEX proceeding Compl. ¶13
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • a housing;
    • a piston with a bore at its distal end;
    • a motor configured to cause the piston to reciprocate;
    • a drive mechanism controlling the piston's stroke length; and
    • a quick-connect system comprising the piston's distal end and a 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 complaint notes that claims 2 through 16 depend on claim 1 and incorporate this "Quick-Connect Limitation" Compl. ¶17

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "hand-held percussion massagers" sold on Amazon.com under ASINs B0BJDL4HJN and B08TLWYKLS Compl. ¶1; Compl. ¶20

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products do not use a magnetic or other low-force coupling system Compl. ¶22 Instead, they employ a "mechanical interference-fit connection" where an "elastic fit ring" on the massage head shaft is retained by "radial interference and friction" inside the piston bore Compl. ¶3; Compl. ¶20
  • According to the complaint, this interface requires "deliberate axial force" to attach the head and "deliberate pull-out force" to remove it Compl. ¶3; Compl. ¶22 The interface is described as being "designed for attachment changes to be performed with the motor stopped" Compl. ¶23
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following table summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its products do not infringe the asserted patent.

’082 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a quick-connect system comprising the distal end of the piston and a first massaging head... The Accused Products use a mechanical interference-fit connection with an elastic ring, which requires deliberate force to engage and disengage. ¶3; ¶20; ¶22 col. 10:8-9
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 Products' interface is not specially designed for insertion or removal while the piston is reciprocating. It is designed for changes to be performed with the motor stopped, requiring controlled manual force to align and insert the head shaft. ¶3; ¶16; ¶23; ¶24 col. 10:10-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The primary dispute is whether the claim term "configured to have... [the head] inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates" can be read to cover a friction-fit interface that the complaint alleges is "designed for attachment changes to be performed with the motor stopped" Compl. ¶23
    • Technical Question: What evidence will be required to determine if a system is "configured" for a specific function? The complaint argues the Accused Products are not "specially designed or adapted" for removal during reciprocation, contrasting this with a system that might be merely "capable" of it Compl. ¶19; Compl. ¶23 This frames a potential dispute over whether the capability alone is sufficient to infringe, or if specific design adaptation is required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "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: This limitation, which the complaint calls the "Quick-Connect Limitation" Compl. ¶16, is the central focus of the non-infringement argument. Its construction will likely be dispositive. The existence of a prior PTAB construction for this term makes it a critical battleground, as district courts often give significant weight to such rulings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope (Defendant Hyperice) may argue that "configured to" does not require a special design and only means the structure is capable of performing the function. They might argue that the claim is not limited to the magnetic embodiment shown in the specification and is meant to cover any mechanism that makes removal possible during operation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope (Plaintiff Kelaisiman) will point to the specification's description of a magnetic system and a rounded head end as the means for achieving this function, suggesting the claim requires a low-force connection that facilitates easy removal during motion ’082 Patent, col. 6:58-68 ’082 Patent, col. 7:10-14 Plaintiff will heavily rely on the PTAB's adopted construction, which requires the system to be "'specially designed and adapted to quickly and easily connect or disconnect... while the piston reciprocates... not merely capable of doing so'" Compl. ¶19

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff preemptively argues against indirect infringement of method claim 18, stating that because the Accused Products lack the configuration for removal during reciprocation, there can be no underlying direct infringement on which to predicate an indirect infringement claim Compl. ¶28
  • Invalidity: The complaint pleads for a declaratory judgment of invalidity in the alternative Compl. ¶44 It asserts that if the "Quick-Connect Limitation" is construed broadly enough to cover the Accused Products' friction-fit interface, then the claims would be rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by prior art that discloses "interchangeable and press-fit head-connection structures" Compl. ¶¶41-42 Compl. ¶45 The complaint identifies U.S. Patent Nos. 4,513,737 (Mabuchi); 6,432,072 (Harris); 6,682,496 (Pivaroff); and U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0150004 (Colloca) as relevant prior art Compl. ¶¶38-41

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

  1. Claim Construction Precedent: A central issue will be the influence of the PTAB's prior construction of the "Quick-Connect Limitation." Will the court adopt the PTAB's narrow reading that requires a system to be "specially designed and adapted" for removal during reciprocation, or will it conduct a de novo analysis that could lead to a different, potentially broader scope?
  2. The Infringement "Squeeze": The case presents a classic infringement-invalidity tension. If Defendant succeeds in arguing for a broad construction of "configured to" that covers Plaintiff's friction-fit mechanism, does that victory make the patent claims vulnerable to an obviousness challenge based on prior art that teaches conventional press-fit or interference-fit connectors?
  3. Evidentiary Proof of "Design": The ultimate infringement question may turn on evidence related to product design and function. What factual evidence will demonstrate whether Plaintiff's friction-fit system is or is not "specially designed and adapted" for head removal while the piston is moving, as opposed to simply being capable of it under certain conditions?