DCT

2:26-cv-03689

Shenzhen Eiffel Medical Technology 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-3689, W.D. Wash., 09/30/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant’s claims arise from its use of Amazon’s APEX patent-enforcement process, which Plaintiff alleges has a substantial connection to the district through governing law and forum selection clauses in related agreements.
  • 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 further alleges that the asserted patent claims are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to handheld percussion massagers and the specific mechanisms used to attach and detach interchangeable massage heads to the device's reciprocating piston.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was precipitated by Defendant’s accusation of infringement against Plaintiff’s products through Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) process. The patent-in-suit has been the subject of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which resulted in a claim construction of a key term. 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 has been statutorily disclaimed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-01 '082 Patent Priority Date
2024-03-26 '082 Patent Issue Date
2026-05-11 PTAB Final Written Decision in PGR2025-00013
2026-06-17 Appeal of PTAB Decision Filed at Federal Circuit
2026-09-09 Defendant Executed Amazon APEX Agreement
2026-09-10 Amazon Notified Plaintiff of Infringement Allegation
2026-09-30 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background section notes that many prior art massaging devices are bulky, generate excessive heat, are noisy, and are difficult to use for extended periods. ’082 Patent, col. 1:30-34
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a percussive massager with various features, but the one central to this dispute is a "quick-connect system" for attaching and detaching a massage head. ’082 Patent, claim 1 The specification describes an exemplary embodiment where magnets are used to retain the massage head, allowing a user to quickly switch heads. ’082 Patent, col. 6:47-68 This system is described as permitting the head to be inserted or removed "even while the piston... is moving." ’082 Patent, col. 7:9-12
  • Technical Importance: A mechanism for rapidly changing massage heads, potentially during operation, could enhance user convenience and allow for more versatile application of the massager to different muscle groups. ’082 Patent, col. 6:52-55

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies dependent Claim 7 (incorporating independent Claim 1) as the claim Defendant selected for Amazon's APEX evaluation. Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶25 It also addresses independent Claim 18. Compl. ¶28
  • Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
    • a housing
    • a piston with a bore
    • a motor to reciprocate the piston
    • a drive mechanism controlling stroke length
    • a "quick-connect system" configured for a massage head to be "inserted into or removed from the bore while the piston reciprocates"
  • The complaint notes that it is seeking a declaration of non-infringement for all presently enforceable claims and reserves the right to assert additional invalidity grounds. Compl. ¶¶34, 47

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "percussion massagers sold on Amazon.com under ASINs B09P1DV7D8 and B0BG4HY4PX" as the Accused Products. Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as handheld percussion massagers. Compl. ¶20
  • Crucially, the complaint alleges the products do not use a magnetic or other low-force coupling. Instead, they employ a "mechanical interference-fit connection." Compl. ¶3 This connection relies on an "elastic fit ring on the massaging-head shaft" that is retained by "radial interference and friction" inside the piston's bore. Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶20
  • The complaint alleges this interface requires "deliberate axial force" and is designed for attachment changes to be performed only "with the motor stopped," not while the piston is reciprocating. Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶23
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments as to why its products do not meet the limitations of the asserted patent claim.

'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, 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 use a mechanical interference-fit connection, not a quick-connect system designed for on-the-fly changes. This system relies on an elastic ring and friction, requiring deliberate axial force for attachment and removal, and is designed for use only when the motor is stopped. ¶3; ¶23 col. 6:52-7:12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The central dispute is whether the term "quick-connect system... configured to... [operate] while the piston reciprocates" can be read to encompass a friction-fit mechanism that the complaint alleges is designed for use only when the device is powered off.
    • Technical Question: What evidence will be presented to establish how the Accused Products' attachment mechanism is "configured" to function? The Plaintiff's position is that it is not designed or adapted for changes during reciprocation, a point which will be subject to factual and expert discovery. Compl. ¶¶23-24

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..." (referred to in the complaint as the "Quick-Connect Limitation"). Compl. ¶16
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the non-infringement dispute. Plaintiff's entire case for non-infringement hinges on its products not meeting this specific functional requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction was previously addressed by the PTAB in a related proceeding, giving the parties a preview of potential arguments. Compl. ¶19
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the claims to the magnetic embodiment shown in the figures. A party could argue that the term "configured to" simply means the structure makes it possible, however difficult, to remove the head during reciprocation, and that a friction-fit is therefore within the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint points to the PTAB's construction, which required 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 The patent's detailed description focuses on a low-force magnetic system ’082 Patent, col. 6:47-7:4 and a tapered head designed to "easily slip into the opening... even while the piston... is moving," suggesting an intentional design for this purpose. ’082 Patent, col. 7:9-12

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity: The complaint pleads invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the alternative. Compl. ¶¶44-46 It argues that if the "Quick-Connect Limitation" is construed broadly enough to cover the Accused Products' conventional friction-fit interface, then the claim would be obvious over prior art that disclosed such known attachment structures for massaging devices. Compl. ¶45 The complaint identifies several prior art references, including Mabuchi, Harris, Pivaroff, and Colloca, as relevant to this analysis. Compl. ¶¶38-41
  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that because the Accused Products do not directly infringe, there can be no underlying act upon which to predicate a claim for indirect infringement. Compl. ¶28

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

  1. Claim Construction: The primary question is one of definitional scope: Will the court adopt the PTAB's narrow construction of the "Quick-Connect Limitation," requiring a system be "specially designed and adapted" for swaps during reciprocation, or will it apply a broader interpretation of "configured to" that could encompass the accused friction-fit mechanism?
  2. Infringement Analysis: A central evidentiary question will be one of technical function: Assuming a construction is adopted, does the evidence demonstrate that the Accused Products' friction-fit interface is, in fact, designed, adapted, or capable of allowing massage head changes "while the piston reciprocates," as required by the claim?
  3. The Alternative Invalidity Squeeze: The case presents a classic strategic dilemma. How does the patentee defend a broad construction of the claims to prove infringement without simultaneously making those same claims more vulnerable to an obviousness challenge based on prior art disclosing conventional friction-fit attachments?