Hyper Ice, Inc. v. PlayMakar, Inc.

On November 11, 2021, Hyper Ice, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Hyperice”), represented by Elisaveta Dolghih of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against PlayMakar, Inc. (“Defendant” or “PlayMakar”), seeking injunctive relief and damages along with costs for alleged infringement of a United States patent owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas with Judge Reed C. O'Connor presiding.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 10,912,708 (“the ‘708 Patent”) entitled “Battery-Powered Percussive Massage Device” owned by the Plaintiff.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “PlayMakar has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘708 Patent-in-suit under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C §§ 271 et seq. PlayMakar manufactures, offers for sale, sells, and/or uses the infringing PlayMakar MVP Percussion Massager product at issue in this case, and/or actively induces the manufacture, sale, and/or use of the infringing PlayMakar MVP Percussion Massager product and/or contributes to the manufacture, sale, and/or use of the infringing PlayMakar MVP Percussion Massager product.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that “PlayMakar infringes at least Claim 7 of the ‘708 Patent. PlayMakar’s PlayMakar MVP Percussion Massager product is a battery-powered percussive massage device that meets the following limitations, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents: the main enclosure extending along an axis, the main enclosure having a proximal end and a distal end, the main enclosure including a cavity; motor having a rotatable shaft; an applicator head having a proximal end removably attachable to the piston, and having a distal end that extends from the distal end of the main enclosure when the proximal end of the applicator is attached to the piston; a handle having an outer gripping surface; a battery unit housed at least partially within the handle; an applicator head having a proximal end removably attachable to the piston, and having a distal end that extends from the distal end of the main enclosure when the proximal end of the applicator is attached to the piston;

The Plaintiff also alleged that “PlayMakar’s infringement of the ‘708 Patent has caused, and will continue to cause, significant damage to Hyperice. As a result of PlayMakar’s infringement of the ‘708 Patent, Hyperice has suffered irreparable harm and impairment of the value of its patent rights, and is now suffering, and will continue to suffer, the violation of its patent rights.”

There is only one claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff for alleged infringement of the Patent owned by the Plaintiff.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to enter a judgment of infringement of the ‘708 patent in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, an order for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against the Defendant from infringing the ‘708 patent, and that this Court award the Plaintiff its costs of suit, its attorney’s fees and compensatory damages for infringement of the ‘708 Patent, as well as interest thereon along with such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.