Short Summary
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision Granted proceeding, Petitioner Therabody, Inc. successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims of Hyperice IP Subco, LLC's patent (11857482) were likely unpatentable. The Board found grounds for institution across multiple statutory bases, including written description and indefiniteness under 112, and obviousness under 103. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art references—Mabuchi, Harris, and Pivaroff—could be combined to render several claims obvious by showing motivation to combine elements related to percussive massage, control panels, and quick release connectors. The Board also noted Petitioner's success in challenging claim language such as 'substantially cylindrical pocket.'
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Therabody, Inc. vs Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Exotec Product France SAS et al.vsOpex Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou. The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to solve known industry problems like congestion and inefficiency in automated material handling systems.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB, in a Director Review, denied institution of Samsung's inter partes review against Headwater's patent, citing the timing of a parallel court proceeding as a decisive discretionary factor.
Intel Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent covering claims 1‑24, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior‑art references such as Arai and Pelc. Discretionary factors, including a stay in a related district‑court case, led the Board to reject a denial request.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Infineon against MOSAID regarding patent 9,972,381 B1, setting the stage for trial.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.