FVOAI Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco: Massage Gun Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in 10 Days
Three plaintiffs — FVOAI Inc., Guangzhou Balan Technology Co., and Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co. — filed a patent infringement action against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting US11938082B1 over massage gun products. The case was voluntarily dismissed in its entirety just 10 days after filing.
A 10-Day Infringement Suit Over Massage Gun Technology in C.D. Cal.
On 17 June 2024, FVOAI Inc. together with Guangzhou Balan Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co. filed a patent infringement action against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Central District of California. The plaintiffs asserted US11938082B1, a U.S. patent directed at handheld massage gun technology, against four specific M&Y Massage Gun product listings (ASINs B0BC1GS34Q, B0BC1DVHSD, B0BCHSHBFL, and B0BC166Z67).
The action was terminated on 27 June 2024 — just 10 days after filing — when the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case in its entirety. The public docket records the basis of termination as voluntary dismissal; the dismissal notice does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. That distinction carries significant legal weight: a dismissal without prejudice leaves the plaintiffs free to refile substantially similar claims, while one with prejudice forecloses future litigation on the same claims against this defendant.
A 10-day lifecycle is strikingly brief even by the standards of early-stage patent suits. The speed of resolution — before any answer or responsive motion would typically be filed — suggests the matter may have been resolved through pre-litigation negotiation, a licensing agreement, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiffs. No financial terms, settlement details, or defendant response appear in the public record, leaving the commercial resolution entirely opaque.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 10 days
10 days from filing to dismissal — exceptionally short lifecycle for a patent infringement action
Voluntarily dismissed: what the record does and does not tell us
Voluntary dismissal — plaintiffs pulled the action themselves
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action. Where the dismissal notice is silent on the prejudice designation, courts and practitioners treat the characterisation as an open question. Here, the public record confirms only that the plaintiffs dismissed ‘in its entirety’ — it does not record whether that was with or without prejudice, meaning the full legal consequence remains ambiguous from the docket alone.
Rule 41 voluntary dismissalWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
This is the critical unanswered question. A dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiffs to refile the same infringement claims against Hyperice IP Subco at a later date. A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars refiling those claims. The public docket does not specify which applies here. Parties reviewing this case for competitive intelligence or FTO purposes should treat refiling risk as live until confirmed otherwise through direct legal review.
Prejudice status unconfirmedPlaintiffs retain optionality — if dismissal is without prejudice
FVOAI Inc., Guangzhou Balan Technology Co., and Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co. initiated and then withdrew this action within 10 days. If the dismissal was without prejudice, they retain the right to reassert US11938082B1 against Hyperice or direct its products in future proceedings. The speed of resolution is consistent with either a negotiated outcome or a deliberate tactical pause — neither of which can be confirmed from the public record.
Refiling risk: open questionHyperice faces no current liability — but cloud on title persists
Hyperice IP Subco, LLC secured an exit from this litigation without any recorded judgment, injunction, or damages award. No defendant counsel or responsive pleading appears on the docket. However, US11938082B1 remains a granted U.S. patent and the plaintiffs’ enforcement posture is unresolved. The percussive massage device market is commercially active, and the patent’s validity and scope have not been adjudicated, leaving residual IP risk for the affected product lines.
No judgment; patent still liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | FVOAI Inc. | Company | Massage gun technology rights holder — asserting US11938082B1 against percussive device productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Guangzhou Balan Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC — IP holding entity associated with the Hyperice recovery technology brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tianyu Ju | Attorney | Counsel for FVOAI Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing FVOAI Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language — ‘This action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety’ — confirms that all claims against Hyperice IP Subco were withdrawn by the asserting parties, not adjudicated on the merits. No ruling on infringement, validity, or damages was issued. Because the basis of termination is voluntary dismissal without a specified prejudice designation, the legal effect of the dismissal on future claim rights remains an open question that the public record does not resolve.
US11938082B1 — Handheld Percussive Massage Gun Technology
US11938082B1 is a granted U.S. utility patent covering handheld percussive therapy device technology — the category commercially known as massage guns. The patent was filed under application number US18/515112 and issued with B1 designation, indicating it issued without any prior publication (i.e., it published simultaneously with grant). This designation is common for fast-track or continuation-type applications and suggests the applicant pursued a direct path to grant.
The percussive massage device market has seen rapid commercialisation over the past several years, attracting significant patent activity from both established brands and newer entrants — including China-based manufacturers seeking U.S. IP protection for products distributed through e-commerce channels. US11938082B1 in the hands of a multi-entity plaintiff structure represents a potentially broad enforcement asset. Competitors and retailers handling percussive massage products should assess claim scope carefully, as the patent survived this litigation cycle unadjudicated and fully enforceable.
Should your massage gun product line be cleared against US11938082B1?
Any company designing, importing, manufacturing, or retailing percussive massage gun devices in the U.S. market should treat US11938082B1 as a live FTO concern. The patent was asserted against specific ASIN-level product listings, suggesting claim language broad enough to reach commercial e-commerce SKUs. Given the voluntary dismissal without prejudice designation, the plaintiffs retain potential enforcement rights — and the speed of the prior action suggests a willingness to file quickly.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map claim scope against product specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and benchmark against the broader percussive therapy device patent landscape. Run a targeted FTO against US11938082B1 before your next product launch or import cycle to quantify exposure and identify design-around opportunities before litigation risk materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11938082B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Massage Gun & Percussive Therapy Device Patent Cases in U.S. Federal Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving handheld percussive therapy and massage gun technology filed in U.S. district courts, including C.D. Cal.
What this case signals for the percussive therapy device IP landscape
A 10-day dismissal in a massage gun patent suit raises questions about enforcement intent, licensing dynamics, and FTO exposure in this fast-growing device category.
Ultra-short lifecycle signals pre-suit resolution or strategic retreat
Patent infringement suits resolved in 10 days or fewer — before any answer is filed — are atypical. This pattern is consistent with a pre-litigation licensing discussion reaching a conclusion, a demand letter strategy achieving its commercial objective, or the plaintiff reassessing claim strength before court costs escalate. Competitors in the massage gun space should monitor for refiling activity.
US11938082B1 remains a live enforcement risk for massage gun product lines
The patent asserted here was not invalidated, not found non-infringed, and not disclaimed. The voluntary dismissal leaves its enforceability entirely intact. Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling percussive massage gun devices in the U.S. market should assess whether their product specifications overlap with the claims of US11938082B1.
FVOAI v Hyperice — key questions answered
FVOAI Inc. and two co-plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Central District of California on 17 June 2024, asserting US11938082B1 over four M&Y Massage Gun product listings. The case was voluntarily dismissed in its entirety 10 days later on 27 June 2024. No judgment, damages award, or injunction was recorded.
The plaintiffs asserted U.S. Patent No. US11938082B1, filed under application number US18/515112, covering handheld percussive massage gun device technology. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without prior publication. The patent’s validity and claim scope were not adjudicated during these proceedings.
The public docket records the basis of termination as voluntary dismissal. The dismissal notice states the action was dismissed ‘in its entirety’ by the plaintiffs but does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. That distinction determines whether the plaintiffs may refile the same claims. The record is silent on this point.
The 10-day lifecycle — shorter than the typical window for a defendant to file an answer — is consistent with several scenarios: a pre-litigation licensing agreement reached after the complaint was filed; a demand-letter strategy achieving its commercial goal; or a strategic decision by the plaintiffs to withdraw before incurring further litigation costs. The public record does not disclose the reason for the rapid dismissal.
The complaint identified four Amazon ASIN product listings: B0BC1GS34Q, B0BC1DVHSD, B0BCHSHBFL, and B0BC166Z67 — all identified as M&Y Massage Guns. Targeting by ASIN is consistent with an enforcement strategy directed at e-commerce channel sales rather than broader manufacturing or distribution activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.