Novoluto GmbH v. Uccellini Inc.: Default Judgment After 972 Days
German wellness-device patent holder Novoluto GmbH sued Oregon-based Uccellini, Inc. for infringing five US patents covering pressure-wave massager technology. With no defense filed, Judge McShane adopted the Magistrate's findings in full and granted default judgment on August 30, 2023 — ending a 972-day case without a contested merits hearing.
Five-patent massager infringement claim ends in uncontested default
Novoluto GmbH, a German company holding five US patents in the pressure-wave and vibration massager space, filed this infringement action against Uccellini, Inc. in the District of Oregon on December 31, 2020. The asserted patents — US9849061B2, US9763851B2, US9937097B2, US11090220B2, and US11103418B2 — cover technology applied in a range of consumer massager products including the Conair electric vibrating massager, Handy Hannah All Purpose Electric Massager, Oster Vibra-Massager, Wahl Jumbo Electra-Vibe, and Windmere Prelude 3 massager, among others.
Uccellini, Inc. did not file objections to Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 80). District Judge McShane reviewed the recommendation de novo, found no error, and adopted it in full. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment was granted by order dated August 30, 2023. The recorded Basis of Termination is Default Judgment.
The case ran for 972 days before reaching its uncontested resolution, suggesting procedural steps — including service, default entry, and the magistrate recommendation process — consumed significant calendar time even without adversarial litigation. The specific relief awarded, including any damages quantum or injunctive terms, is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Default Judgment in 972 days
972 days from filing to default judgment — above the median for unopposed patent cases in the D. Or.
US9849061B2 and four related patents — pressure-wave and vibration massager technology
Any company distributing, retailing, or developing consumer vibrating or pressure-wave massager products in the US market should treat this five-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The named product list in this case spans major consumer brands, suggesting broad claim coverage across conventional massager SKUs — not just niche wellness devices. Private-label manufacturers, online marketplace sellers, and import distributors are particularly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
Judge McShane's order adopts Magistrate Kasubhai's Findings and Recommendation in full following de novo review — a procedural posture that confirms no legal error was identified in the default judgment analysis. The order's brevity reflects the uncontested nature of the proceeding: with no objections filed by Uccellini, the court's inquiry was limited to correctness of the recommendation, not merits adjudication. The specific relief terms are not stated in the available order text.
Default judgment: what the uncontested ruling means for both parties
Default judgment entered after no defense was mounted
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond, and the court finds the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations sufficient. Here, Judge McShane adopted Magistrate Kasubhai's Findings and Recommendation in full after de novo review, confirming no procedural error. The judgment is a court-entered, binding disposition — not a settlement.
Uncontested dispositionNovoluto secures judgment on all five asserted patents
The default judgment validates Novoluto's infringement claims across all five asserted patents without any invalidity or non-infringement defense having been litigated. This strengthens the patents' enforceability signal in the public record. The specific monetary or injunctive relief awarded is not disclosed in the available docket entry.
Plaintiff prevailsUccellini bound by judgment it did not contest
By failing to appear or file objections, Uccellini, Inc. is bound by a default judgment that it had no part in shaping. The defendant's options at this stage are limited to post-judgment relief motions — which face a high bar — or appeal. No record of any such action appears in the available data.
No defense filedUnenforced patents become precedent for future distributor targets
A default judgment in a multi-patent infringement action signals that Novoluto is prepared to enforce its portfolio aggressively in US courts. Distributors and retailers of consumer massager products featuring vibration or pressure-wave technology should treat this outcome as a litigation risk marker and consider FTO review against all five asserted patents.
Enforcement risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Novoluto, GmbH | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Uccellini, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Califf Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa Erin Margonis | Attorney | Counsel for Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter C. Schechter | Attorney | Counsel for Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott E. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tammy J. Terry | Attorney | Counsel for Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Klarquist, Sparkman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Novoluto, GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan C. Brunette | Attorney | Counsel for Uccellini, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven T. Lovett | Attorney | Counsel for Uccellini, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Uccellini Inc. | Attorney | Counsel for Uccellini, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stoel Rives LLP | Law Firm | Representing Uccellini, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai | Judge | Oregon District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the pressure-wave and vibration massager patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Novoluto's portfolio activity and the consumer wellness device technology landscape surrounding this case.
Novoluto's US filing activity across five application families
Novoluto holds at least five US patents across application numbers filed in the mid-2010s, suggesting a structured continuation strategy in the pressure-wave massager space. Monitoring continuation and divisional applications from these families — particularly those still in prosecution — can reveal the future claim perimeter Novoluto is building toward.
Active portfolio watchFiling trends in pressure-wave personal device technology
The pressure-wave and vibration personal massager sector has attracted growing patent activity from both established consumer electronics companies and specialist wellness device startups. Understanding filing volume, dominant assignees, and claim focus areas in this domain helps R&D teams identify crowded zones and open differentiation paths.
Sector filing trendsPatent positions of named product brand owners in this case
The six named products implicate brands including Conair, Oster, Wahl, and Windmere. Reviewing the patent portfolios and licensing postures of these brand owners — and how they respond to infringement actions by portfolio holders like Novoluto — provides intelligence on how the supply chain is managing pressure-wave IP risk.
Brand owner IP auditAdjacent innovation space near Novoluto's claimed technology
Mapping the claim boundaries of all five Novoluto patents can reveal white-space adjacent to their protected architecture — including alternative pressure-delivery mechanisms, digital control interfaces, or IoT-enabled device configurations — where new patent filings could be strategically valuable without entering the asserted claim perimeter.
Innovation white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in consumer massager and wellness device technology
Explore comparable multi-patent infringement actions involving pressure-wave and vibration massager technology filed in US district courts, including the District of Oregon.
What this case signals for the consumer wellness device IP landscape
Novoluto's default win across five patents signals active US enforcement of its pressure-wave technology portfolio against consumer product distributors.
Default judgment signals low-defense vulnerability in distributor targets
Uccellini's failure to appear suggests smaller distributors in the consumer massager space may lack the resources or legal counsel to mount a defense. Novoluto's strategy of filing in the District of Oregon against a regional player is consistent with targeted enforcement against supply-chain participants rather than original equipment manufacturers.
Five-patent assertion broadens the technical perimeter Novoluto defends
Asserting five patents across multiple application numbers in a single action raises the technical and commercial barrier for competitors. Any company selling products in the vibrating or pressure-wave massager category — including private-label brands and online marketplace sellers — should audit their product lines against this portfolio before market entry.
Novoluto v Uccellini — key questions answered
The case ended with a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Novoluto GmbH, entered by District Judge McShane on August 30, 2023. The judgment adopted Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's Findings and Recommendation in full after de novo review. Uccellini, Inc. did not file any objections. The specific relief awarded is not stated in the available public order.
Novoluto asserted five US patents: US9849061B2, US9763851B2, US9937097B2, US11090220B2, and US11103418B2. All relate to pressure-wave and vibration massager technology and were filed across several US application numbers in the mid-2010s.
The accused products named in the case include the Conair electric vibrating massager, Handy Hannah All Purpose Electric Massager, Oster Vibra-Massager, a turkey baster bulb head product, the Wahl Jumbo Electra-Vibe Massage Vibrator, and the Windmere Prelude 3 massager.
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond, and the court finds the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations sufficient. Unlike a merits ruling, it does not involve adversarial invalidity or non-infringement analysis. The patents retain their full presumption of validity, as no validity challenge was litigated. The defendant's post-judgment options are limited and face a high procedural bar.
Because no invalidity defense was raised or adjudicated, all five Novoluto patents retain their presumption of validity with no adverse record. Companies distributing vibrating or pressure-wave massager products in the US should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this portfolio. Continuation applications from these patent families may also still be in prosecution, potentially expanding claim coverage.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.