Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.

PGR2024-00053

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2024-00053
Judge(s)
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, ALYSSA A. FINAMORE
Decision Date
27 September 2024

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

patentIPR2024-00633

Fluidmaster, Inc.vsDanco, Inc. et al.

The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'

patentIPR2025-01342

Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC

AutoConnect Holdings seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that granted institution based on Ford’s supplier‑based settled‑expectations argument. The patent owner contends the factual basis is unsupported and asks for denial of institution.

patentIPR2025-00879

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.

patentIPR2025-01338

SNAP INC.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.

patentIPR2025-01231

SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLightvsPathway IP LLC

ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call