Guangzhou Balan v. Hyperice IP Subco: Massage Gun Patent Consolidated in W.D. Wash.
Six Amazon massage-gun sellers, including Guangzhou Balan Technology, filed coordinated declaratory judgment actions against Hyperice IP Subco challenging US12213933. Judge Evanson consolidated all six cases for pretrial proceedings after just 33 days — a notably swift consolidation order in a multi-plaintiff DJ campaign.
Six Amazon Sellers Launch Coordinated DJ Assault on Hyperice Massage Gun Patent
On August 15, 2025, Guangzhou Balan Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:25-cv-01561) seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 (the "’933 Patent"), which Hyperice had been asserting against sellers of massage gun products distributed through Amazon. The three specific massage gun products at issue are identified by Amazon ASINs B0BCHSHBFL, B0BC1DVHSD, and B0BC166Z67.
On September 17, 2025 — just 33 days after filing — Judge Kymberly K. Evanson issued an order granting the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The court consolidated this case with five other nearly identical declaratory judgment actions filed by Toloco Inc., Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronic Technology, Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology, Guangzhou Shirui Technology, and Guangzhou Talong Technology, all challenging the same ‘933 Patent. The lead case is designated as Toloco Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco (2:25-cv-01560-KKE). Consolidation is for pretrial purposes only; each plaintiff retains its individual claims and right to separate trial adjudication.
The speed of consolidation — agreed by both parties via stipulation — suggests a coordinated litigation strategy among the six Chinese-based Amazon sellers. The consolidation order does not resolve the underlying merits of non-infringement or invalidity, meaning the ‘933 Patent’s enforceability remains squarely at issue. The public record does not disclose what underlying claim charts or licensing demands from Hyperice prompted this wave of DJ filings, nor whether settlement discussions are underway in the lead case.
Filing to Case Consolidated in 33 days
33 days to consolidation order — well below median DJ patent case disposition time
Six DJ actions merged for pretrial: what the consolidation means
FRCP 42(a) consolidation: efficiency, not resolution
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate actions sharing common questions of law or fact. Here, all six cases involve identical legal questions — non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘933 Patent — and the same defendant. Consolidation streamlines pretrial discovery and motion practice but expressly does not merge cases for trial. Each plaintiff retains separate claims and the right to individual judgment.
Pretrial only — merits unresolvedCoordinated plaintiffs gain litigation efficiency
By consolidating, the six Amazon sellers can share discovery costs, coordinate claim construction arguments, and present unified invalidity contentions against the ‘933 Patent. This significantly reduces per-plaintiff litigation burden and creates collective leverage against a single patent holder. The stipulated nature of the motion suggests Hyperice also saw efficiency benefits, consistent with a defendant managing multi-front DJ exposure from a single patent.
Shared discovery, reduced costHyperice faces unified invalidity challenge across six plaintiffs
Hyperice IP Subco now faces a consolidated front of six plaintiffs who can pool resources to challenge the ‘933 Patent’s validity. While consolidation preserves Hyperice’s ability to pursue infringement counterclaims against each seller individually, the coordination among plaintiffs typically raises the risk of a single adverse claim construction or invalidity ruling affecting all six actions simultaneously. The outcome in the lead case will likely set the practical tone for all related matters.
Single adverse ruling riskAmazon marketplace patent enforcement faces coordinated pushback
This consolidation is consistent with an emerging pattern where multiple Amazon third-party sellers — often Chinese manufacturers — respond to IP enforcement campaigns with coordinated DJ filings rather than individual settlements. For the percussion massage gun sector, the validity of US12213933 will now be tested at scale. A successful invalidity ruling in the lead case could neutralize Hyperice’s enforcement posture across the entire Amazon marketplace channel for this product category.
Amazon enforcement landscape shiftFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangzhou Balan Technology Co Ltd | Company | Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of Amazon massage gun product listings challenged under US12213933Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC — IP holding entity asserting US12213933 against Amazon massage gun sellersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Balan Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guangzhou Balan Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Poulos | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MILLER BARONDESS LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Kymberly K. Evanson | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consolidation order issued by Judge Evanson under FRCP 42(a) is procedural in nature and does not adjudicate any substantive patent claim. The court’s finding that all six cases present ‘common questions of law or fact’ — specifically validity and infringement of the ‘933 Patent — confirms the coordinated character of both the enforcement campaign and the DJ response. Critically, the order preserves each plaintiff’s individual claims, meaning Hyperice retains the ability to pursue differentiated infringement arguments against each seller’s specific massage gun products identified by Amazon ASIN.
US12213933B1 — Percussion Massage Gun Device Technology
U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 (Application No. US18/760576) is a recently granted utility patent asserted by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the percussion massage gun space. The patent covers technology embedded in handheld percussive therapy devices — a product category that has experienced rapid commoditization on Amazon, with numerous Chinese manufacturers offering competing SKUs at accessible price points. The recency of the patent’s grant, combined with its deployment against specific Amazon ASINs, suggests it was developed or acquired with marketplace enforcement in mind.
For the consumer recovery device sector, US12213933 represents meaningful IP risk. Hyperice — a recognized brand in the percussive therapy market — appears to be using this patent to establish licensing leverage against lower-cost Amazon competitors. With six plaintiffs already challenging validity, the patent’s claim scope and prosecution history will receive intensive scrutiny in the consolidated proceedings. Any claim narrowing or invalidity finding could significantly reshape the competitive landscape for massage gun manufacturers and importers operating in the U.S. market.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US12213933B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling percussion massage guns — particularly through Amazon — should treat US12213933 as a live enforcement risk. Hyperice has already identified specific product ASINs in its assertions, indicating a data-driven targeting approach. If your product uses percussive mechanisms for soft tissue treatment and is sold through U.S. e-commerce channels, the consolidated litigation outcome will not protect you unless you are one of the six named plaintiffs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US12213933, identify relevant prior art that the six plaintiffs may rely on in their invalidity challenge, and flag continuation or continuation-in-part applications in the same family that could extend Hyperice’s enforcement reach. Running this analysis now — while claim construction is still open — gives you the maximum window to design around or build a defensive prior art record.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12213933B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent DJ Actions: Percussion & Consumer Device Cases in W.D. Wash.
Explore related declaratory judgment actions involving consumer electronics and percussive device patents filed in the Western District of Washington and comparable Amazon marketplace IP disputes.
What this case signals for consumer device patent enforcement on Amazon
The Hyperice consolidation illustrates how Amazon marketplace IP disputes are rapidly evolving into coordinated multi-plaintiff litigation.
Coordinated DJ filings are becoming a standard counter to Amazon IP threats
When a patent holder pursues multiple Amazon sellers over the same product category, coordinated declaratory judgment filings — as seen here with six simultaneous plaintiffs — redistribute litigation cost and force the patent holder to defend validity at scale rather than extract individual settlements. IP counsel should monitor filing clusters around specific ASINs.
Consolidation under Rule 42(a) does not resolve the underlying patent merits
The September 17 order is purely procedural. US12213933 remains live and asserted. Companies selling percussion massage guns on Amazon or similar platforms should treat this patent as active enforcement risk until a substantive invalidity or non-infringement ruling is issued in the lead case (2:25-cv-01560-KKE).
Guangzhou v Hyperice — key questions answered
The case was consolidated with five related actions on September 17, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). No merits ruling on infringement or invalidity of US12213933 has been issued. The lead case is Toloco Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco (2:25-cv-01560-KKE) in the Western District of Washington.
US12213933B1 covers percussion massage gun device technology. Hyperice IP Subco has identified specific Amazon ASINs — B0BCHSHBFL, B0BC1DVHSD, and B0BC166Z67 — as allegedly infringing products. The enforcement pattern, targeting multiple third-party Amazon sellers via specific product listings, is consistent with marketplace IP enforcement strategy in the consumer recovery device sector.
Consolidation under FRCP 42(a) merges the six cases for pretrial proceedings — including discovery and motion practice — but not for trial or final judgment. Each of the six plaintiffs retains its individual claims and the right to separate adjudication. A ruling on claim construction or invalidity in the lead case will practically, though not formally, influence all six actions.
Five additional plaintiffs filed nearly simultaneous declaratory judgment actions: Toloco Inc. (lead case, 2:25-cv-01560), Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. (2:25-cv-01562), Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. (2:25-cv-01563), Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co. Ltd. (2:25-cv-01564), and Guangzhou Talong Technology Co. Ltd. (2:25-cv-01565). All six cases are pending before Judge Kymberly K. Evanson.
No. The consolidation order is procedural and does not invalidate or limit US12213933. Third-party sellers not named as plaintiffs in the six consolidated cases remain exposed to infringement assertions from Hyperice. Until a substantive invalidity or non-infringement ruling is issued in the lead case, US12213933 should be treated as enforceable for FTO purposes.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.