AC Green Ltd v. Hyper Ice: Renpho Eye Massager Patent DJ Dismissed
AC Green Limited, operating as Renpho, filed a declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California against Hyperice over patents covering eye massager technology. The case resolved in 88 days when Renpho voluntarily dismissed its noninfringement and invalidity claims, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
Renpho fires the opening shot, then withdraws: a DJ case unpacked
On November 11, 2024, AC Green Limited — the entity behind the Renpho brand — filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-02460) against Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel, Inc. The complaint sought declarations of noninfringement and invalidity of patents including US12097161B2, which covers technology implicated by Renpho’s line of eye massager products. The filing suggests Hyperice had threatened or asserted these patents against Renpho prior to suit.
The case closed on February 7, 2025 — just 88 days after filing — when Renpho filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Under that rule, a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, requiring no court order. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Renpho is not barred from refiling, and each entity was directed to bear its own costs and fees.
The speed of resolution and the without-prejudice designation are notable. The case closed before any substantive merits ruling, and the public record does not disclose whether a private settlement or licensing agreement accompanied the dismissal. The own-costs provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution, but that inference is not confirmed by the record. The without-prejudice status means patent validity and infringement remain unresolved as a legal matter, preserving risk on both sides.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 88 days
88 days — resolved well under median DJ patent case duration in C.D. Cal.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order if filed before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This means the court had no involvement in the exit — Renpho exercised a procedural right unilaterally. The dismissal carries no merits adjudication and creates no judicial estoppel on the patent questions raised.
No merits rulingDismissed without prejudice — but the public record is silent on full terms
A dismissal without prejudice preserves Renpho’s right to refile the declaratory judgment claims. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred those claims. The verdict text explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ so refiling remains procedurally open. However, the public record does not reveal whether a confidential settlement or license agreement was reached alongside the dismissal — a common but undisclosed accompaniment to rapid voluntary exits.
Refiling remains possibleRenpho exits without concession — but patent cloud remains
By dismissing without prejudice, Renpho made no admission of infringement and no concession on patent validity. However, the underlying patent US12097161B2 was never invalidated or held not infringed. Renpho’s Eye Massager products continue to operate under a potential patent cloud unless a license or separate agreement was reached privately. The own-costs provision suggests neither side extracted a litigation win.
No infringement admissionHyperice retains intact patent — enforcement options preserved
The dismissal without prejudice leaves US12097161B2 unscathed — no invalidity finding, no claim construction, no adverse ruling. Hyperice retains full enforcement options against Renpho’s Eye Massager line and against third parties. The absence of a with-prejudice bar or a court-sanctioned license means Hyperice could resurface infringement assertions if product designs or commercial arrangements change.
Patent enforcement intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AC Green Limited | Individual | Consumer wellness device brand (Renpho) — declaratory plaintiff asserting noninfringement of US12097161B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Hyperice, Inc. — recovery technology company holding patents on wearable massage and compression devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward H. Rice | Attorney | Counsel for AC Green LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marina N. Saito | Attorney | Counsel for AC Green LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Martin J. Foley | Attorney | Counsel for AC Green LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC | Law Firm | Representing AC Green LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Martin J. Foley, a PLC | Law Firm | Representing AC Green LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which operates as of right and requires no judicial approval — confirming this exit occurred before any responsive pleading. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language is legally significant: it forecloses any argument of claim preclusion or res judicata against future declaratory judgment filings. The own-costs provision, while neutral on the merits, is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral concession, though no settlement is confirmed on the public docket.
US12097161B2 — wearable eye and recovery massage compression technology
US12097161B2 (application no. US18/626317) is the patent at the centre of this dispute. The patent covers technology in the wearable recovery and massage space, specifically implicated by Renpho’s Eye Massager product line. Wearable compression and vibration massage devices sit at the intersection of consumer wellness hardware and medical-adjacent recovery technology — a segment that has attracted significant IP activity as device miniaturisation and smart-home wellness adoption accelerate.
For Hyperice, a company that has built its commercial identity around recovery technology used by professional athletes and fitness consumers, holding enforceable IP in this space is commercially critical. The assertion of this patent against a mass-market brand like Renpho signals that Hyperice is actively policing its portfolio against lower-cost competitors entering the eye and body massager segment. Competitors developing similar wearable massage products should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US12097161B2?
Any product team developing wearable eye massagers, head-worn compression devices, or vibration-based facial and ocular wellness devices should treat US12097161B2 as a priority clearance target. This case demonstrates that Hyperice is willing to assert this patent commercially — the DJ filing by a significant market participant like Renpho confirms real enforcement pressure exists, not merely a paper patent. The without-prejudice dismissal means no court has limited or construed Hyperice’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product feature sets against the independent and dependent claims of US12097161B2, identify design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that could support an IPR petition if invalidity arguments remain viable. Given the unresolved validity status of this patent, running a landscape analysis now — before product launch — is significantly lower cost than defending an infringement suit post-commercialisation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12097161B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent DJ cases in wearable wellness and massage device technology
Explore comparable declaratory judgment actions involving wearable massage, compression, and recovery device patents litigated in California federal courts.
What this case signals for the wearable wellness device IP landscape
A fast DJ exit in the eye massager space raises pointed questions about licensing leverage and competitor patent strategy in consumer wellness technology.
DJ actions are offensive tools — Renpho’s filing signals prior threat
Declaratory judgment plaintiffs typically file only after receiving a cease-and-desist, licensing demand, or explicit infringement assertion. Renpho’s decision to open litigation in C.D. Cal. suggests Hyperice had applied commercial or legal pressure before November 2024. Companies in adjacent wearable wellness categories should audit their exposure to Hyperice’s portfolio proactively.
A 88-day resolution with own-costs is consistent with parallel negotiation
Cases that resolve this quickly under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before any answer is filed — frequently reflect behind-the-scenes licensing discussions. The own-costs provision is neither a victory indicator nor a concession; it is a neutral split that avoids prolonged fee litigation. This pattern is common when parties reach a commercial arrangement they prefer to keep confidential.
Limited v Hyper — key questions answered
AC Green Limited (Renpho) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California on November 11, 2024, seeking declarations that its Eye Massager products did not infringe and that patents including US12097161B2 were invalid. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on February 7, 2025 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the court made no finding on infringement or validity. Renpho’s Eye Massager products remain potentially exposed to future infringement assertions by Hyperice because US12097161B2 was never invalidated or held not infringed. Renpho also retains the right to refile its declaratory judgment claims, but that right may be shaped by any confidential settlement reached between the parties.
Declaratory judgment actions are typically filed after a patent holder has issued threats, licensing demands, or cease-and-desist communications. By filing first, Renpho sought to choose the forum (C.D. Cal.), control the timing of litigation, and potentially force a licensing negotiation from a position of litigation leverage. The filing itself signals that pre-litigation pressure from Hyperice had reached a threshold that prompted legal action.
US12097161B2 (application US18/626317) is a Hyperice patent covering technology in the wearable compression and massage space. The patent was asserted as relevant to Renpho’s Eye Massager product line, suggesting its claims cover features common to wearable head-worn devices that apply vibration or compression for recovery or wellness. The full claim scope determines how broadly competitors in the eye and facial wellness device market are affected.
The own-costs provision — where each party bears its own litigation costs — is neutral and does not confirm or deny a settlement. It is consistent with a negotiated exit where both parties agreed to walk away commercially, but it is equally consistent with a strategic unilateral dismissal. The public docket does not disclose any settlement agreement, and no inference of settlement should be drawn from the procedural record alone.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.