HoMedics v. Zyllion: Heated Massager Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice in 126 Days
FKA Distributing Co., LLC — operating as HoMedics — filed suit against rival massager brand Zyllion Inc. in California’s Central District, asserting US7722553B2 covering heated shiatsu massager technology. The parties jointly dismissed the action with prejudice in just 126 days, each side absorbing its own litigation costs.
Swift with-prejudice exit in the consumer massager IP space
On October 16, 2023, FKA Distributing Co., LLC — trading as HoMedics, a well-known consumer wellness brand — filed a patent infringement action against Zyllion Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:23-cv-01942). The suit centred on US7722553B2, a patent covering heated shiatsu massager technology, and alleged that Zyllion’s competing products infringed that patent.
The case closed on February 19, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning HoMedics is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Zyllion on the same grounds. Consistent with the agreement, each party was left to bear its own attorney fees and litigation costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed outcome.
The 126-day lifespan of this case is notably short for patent litigation in C.D. California, where cases routinely take years to reach trial. The speed of resolution — before any substantive motions or claim construction proceedings appear on the public docket — suggests the parties likely reached a commercial accommodation, possibly a licence or cross-licensing arrangement, early in the proceedings. The precise terms of any such agreement remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 126 days
From filing to dismissal — well under the median for patent infringement cases in C.D. Cal.
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — Joint stipulated dismissal
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties signed a stipulation to dismiss without court adjudication. This mechanism requires defendant’s consent and is commonly used when parties have reached a private resolution. It produces a final dismissal without a judicial ruling on the merits, preserving each side’s ability to characterise the outcome on their own terms.
Negotiated exit — no merits rulingWith prejudice bars HoMedics from refiling
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. HoMedics cannot bring a new lawsuit asserting US7722553B2 against Zyllion for the same accused products or conduct. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice exit and typically signals the plaintiff received something meaningful in return — most plausibly a licence, settlement payment, or design-around commitment from Zyllion.
Permanent bar on refilingEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting
The stipulation expressly allocates attorney fees and costs to each party separately. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, courts may award fees in exceptional patent cases, but no such application was made here. The mutual cost-bearing structure is consistent with a balanced negotiated outcome and suggests neither party was willing — or able — to characterise the other as having litigated in bad faith.
No § 285 fee awardPrivate terms likely — public record is silent on deal specifics
No licence agreement, royalty terms, or design-around commitments appear in the public docket. The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, mutual cost-bearing, and rapid resolution in under 130 days is consistent with a confidential commercial settlement. Companies in competitive consumer product sectors frequently prefer private resolution to avoid disclosing licensing rates that could anchor future negotiations.
Settlement terms not publicFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fka Distributing Co., LLC | Company | Consumer wellness brand and massager manufacturer — holder of US7722553B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zyllion, Inc. | Company | Zyllion Inc. — competing consumer massager brand targeted by HoMedics’ infringement claimSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark A. Cantor | Attorney | Counsel for Fka Distributing Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William E. Thomson | Attorney | Counsel for Fka Distributing Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey H. Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Zyllion, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | California Central District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), confirming both parties affirmatively consented to the dismissal — it was not unilaterally imposed. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal consequence: it extinguishes HoMedics’ right to refile against Zyllion on these claims. The mutual cost-bearing clause reflects a balanced negotiation. Taken together, the language is most consistent with a confidential commercial settlement in which both sides obtained sufficient value to forgo further litigation.
US7722553B2 — Heated Shiatsu Massager Technology
US7722553B2 protects technology relating to a heated shiatsu massager — a device category combining rotational or kneading massage nodes with integrated thermal elements. The patent was filed under application number US11/972071 and granted to FKA Distributing Co., LLC. Shiatsu massager patents in this period typically claim specific mechanical configurations of massage heads, heat delivery systems, and user-facing control interfaces, making claim scope highly dependent on the precise independent claims and prosecution history.
In the consumer wellness and personal care device sector, heating and massage integration patents have become strategically significant as the category has expanded from specialty retail into mass-market e-commerce. HoMedics is one of the dominant brands in this segment, and US7722553B2 represents a core asset in its portfolio. Competitors sourcing heated shiatsu products — particularly from contract manufacturers supplying multiple brands — face the risk that shared component architectures may implicate the same claim elements that triggered this enforcement action against Zyllion.
Should your heated massager products be cleared against US7722553B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling heated shiatsu massagers in the United States should treat US7722553B2 as a priority FTO target. HoMedics has demonstrated active enforcement willingness by filing in federal court. The with-prejudice dismissal does not narrow the patent’s scope against third parties — it only resolves the Zyllion dispute. R&D teams modifying massage node geometry, heat element placement, or control mechanisms should document design-around rationale contemporaneously.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the independent claims of US7722553B2, flag prosecution history estoppel, and identify prior art that may inform invalidity arguments. Claim monitoring alerts will notify your IP team if HoMedics files continuation patents or new enforcement actions in this technology class — enabling a proactive posture rather than reactive litigation response.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7722553B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related patent cases in heated massager and personal wellness device technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the consumer massager IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit in consumer wellness patent litigation carries real signals for competitors and IP strategists monitoring this space.
With-prejudice dismissals signal a deal, not a concession of weakness
When a plaintiff agrees to dismiss with prejudice this quickly, it typically means they secured something — a licence, a payment, or a product change. Competitors should not read this as HoMedics abandoning US7722553B2. The patent remains in force and could be asserted against other market participants.
US7722553B2 remains a live enforcement risk for the heated massager category
The dismissal resolves only the Zyllion dispute. Any company selling heated shiatsu massagers that has not obtained a licence from HoMedics should treat this patent as an active risk. HoMedics demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court, and C.D. California is a frequently used venue for consumer product IP enforcement.
Fka v Zyllion — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on February 19, 2024, pursuant to a joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own attorney fees and costs. No court ruling on the merits was issued. The dismissal permanently bars HoMedics from refiling the same patent claims against Zyllion.
HoMedics asserted US7722553B2, filed under application number US11/972071, covering heated shiatsu massager technology. The accused product category was heated shiatsu massagers sold by Zyllion Inc.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismiss an action without a court ruling on the merits. When dismissal is with prejudice, the plaintiff is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against the same defendant. It is functionally equivalent to a final judgment and typically reflects a negotiated resolution between the parties.
No. A with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between these specific parties. US7722553B2 remains in full force and effect. HoMedics retains the right to assert the patent against any other party not covered by the Zyllion stipulation. Third-party competitors should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patent is weak or unenforceable.
The case lasted 126 days, from filing on October 16, 2023, to closure on February 19, 2024. This is significantly shorter than the median patent case in C.D. California, which typically involves months of claim construction proceedings before any resolution. The rapid timeline suggests the parties reached a private commercial agreement — potentially a licence or settlement — early in the litigation process.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.