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
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
VideoAmp Inc.vsThe Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Anthony Inc.vsControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of CATL’s (Ningde Amperex) lithium‑ion battery electrode patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.