Guangzhou Shirui v. Hyperice IP: Six Massage Gun DJ Actions Consolidated in 33 Days
Guangzhou Shirui Technology and five related plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment actions against Hyperice IP Subco challenging US Patent No. 12,213,933, a massage gun patent, after Hyperice alleged infringement of Amazon-sold products. The court consolidated all six cases within 33 days under Rule 42(a), signalling a coordinated multi-plaintiff challenge to a single patent.
Six Amazon Sellers Unite to Challenge Hyperice’s Massage Gun Patent
On 15 August 2025, Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co Ltd filed a declaratory judgment action against Hyperice IP Subco LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, case no. 2:25-cv-01564, before Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. The suit targets US Patent No. 12,213,933, a massage gun patent, and seeks declarations of both non-infringement and invalidity. Shirui’s products, identified by multiple Amazon ASINs, form the basis of the infringement allegations that prompted the DJ filing.
Within 33 days of filing, the court issued an order granting a Stipulation and Joint Motion to Consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The consolidation order merged this case with five other related actions, all of which are declaratory judgment suits by different plaintiffs asserting the same non-infringement and invalidity claims against the same ‘933 Patent. The case was thereafter marked closed as a standalone docket, with proceedings continuing under the consolidated matter.
The 33-day timeline to consolidation is notably brief and consistent with strong alignment between the parties on procedural efficiency. The fact that six separate Amazon sellers independently filed DJ actions against a single patent holder suggests a coordinated response to what the plaintiffs characterise as a broad enforcement campaign. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing demands preceded the filings, nor does it reveal the identity of the other five consolidated plaintiffs at this stage.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 33 days
33-day duration — unusually fast; consolidation order issued before substantive proceedings began
Case closed via consolidation: what the Rule 42(a) order means for both sides
Rule 42(a) consolidation closes standalone docket
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate cases sharing common questions of law or fact. Here, the court found all six DJ actions involve identical legal questions — non-infringement and invalidity of US12213933B1. The individual docket is marked closed, but the dispute continues in the consolidated proceeding. This is a procedural termination, not a merits ruling.
Procedural — no merits decidedMulti-plaintiff coordination strengthens DJ posture
Consolidation benefits the plaintiff group: shared discovery, unified briefing schedules, and pooled litigation costs across six defendants-turned-declaratory-plaintiffs. A single invalidity finding in the consolidated case would presumptively benefit all six parties simultaneously. The coordination also signals to Hyperice that its enforcement campaign faces organised, well-resourced opposition rather than isolated individual defendants.
Plaintiff position strengthenedHyperice faces consolidated invalidity challenge across six products
For Hyperice IP Subco, consolidation concentrates risk. A single adverse ruling on validity or claim scope would extinguish enforcement rights against all six Amazon sellers simultaneously. The patent, US12213933B1, is now subject to a coordinated, multi-party validity challenge. Hyperice must defend the ‘933 Patent’s scope and validity on a broader front than any individual infringement action would have required.
Heightened invalidity riskAmazon marketplace patent enforcement under coordinated scrutiny
This case is consistent with an emerging pattern in which Chinese manufacturers selling via Amazon respond to U.S. patent enforcement letters with coordinated DJ filings rather than individual settlements. A consolidated invalidity ruling against US12213933B1 would remove Hyperice’s enforcement leverage across the massage gun category on Amazon, with broader implications for percussion therapy device IP enforcement strategies.
Amazon IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co Ltd | Company | Consumer electronics exporter — holder of declaratory judgment claims against US12213933B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Hyperice IP Subco LLC — patent enforcement entity asserting massage gun patent US12213933B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guangzhou Shirui 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 court’s consolidation order under Rule 42(a) is a procedural ruling, not a merits determination. The language — ‘consolidation will best serve judicial economy in resolving the common issues’ — confirms the court views all six DJ actions as substantively identical disputes over US12213933B1. No finding on infringement or validity has been made. The order sets the stage for a single proceeding that will determine the patent’s enforceability across all six Amazon product lines simultaneously.
US12213933B1 — Percussion Massage Gun Technology
US Patent No. 12,213,933 (application no. US18/760576) covers percussion massage gun technology — handheld devices that deliver rapid repetitive pressure to muscle tissue for recovery and pain relief. As a B1 grant, the patent issued without pre-grant publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined examination history. The patent sits within the rapidly commercialised consumer wellness device category, where design differentiation and claim breadth are both commercially and legally contested.
The ‘933 Patent’s strategic value to Hyperice lies in its potential to restrict competing massage gun products sold through Amazon, a dominant channel for this category. With six separate ASINs identified across the consolidated actions, the patent’s claim scope appears broad enough — or ambiguous enough — to support enforcement against multiple product configurations. For competitors and OEM manufacturers in the percussion therapy space, this patent represents a live enforcement risk that warrants independent claim-by-claim analysis before product launch or continued Amazon listings.
Should you run an FTO against US12213933B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling percussion massage gun products on Amazon or other U.S. e-commerce platforms should treat US12213933B1 as an active enforcement risk. The six consolidated DJ actions confirm that Hyperice has actively asserted this patent against Amazon sellers. If your product’s ASIN appears in the same category, an FTO analysis is not optional — it is a pre-requisite for continued U.S. sales.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US12213933B1’s independent claims against your product’s technical specifications, identify prior art that the consolidated plaintiffs may be relying on for invalidity, and flag related Hyperice IP filings that could extend enforcement risk. Run the analysis before the consolidated proceeding produces a claim construction ruling that redefines the patent’s scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12213933B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar massage gun and consumer device patent DJ actions
Explore related declaratory judgment cases involving percussion therapy and consumer wellness device patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including W.D. Washington.
What this case signals for the massage gun and consumer device IP landscape
Six coordinated DJ filings against one patent is not coincidental — it reflects a maturing litigation response strategy among Amazon-channel manufacturers.
Coordinated DJ filings are becoming the default counter to Amazon enforcement campaigns
When a patent holder sends infringement notices to multiple Amazon sellers, those sellers increasingly file DJ actions in unison rather than settling individually. Rule 42(a) consolidation then amplifies their leverage. Companies holding single patents and pursuing broad Amazon enforcement should model the risk of a consolidated invalidity challenge before issuing demand letters at scale.
US12213933B1 now faces a multi-party validity challenge in a single proceeding
The ‘933 Patent covers massage gun technology and was filed as application US18/760576. With six product lines represented in the consolidated action, any claim construction or invalidity ruling will have immediate commercial consequences across a substantial portion of the Amazon percussion therapy market. Monitor the consolidated docket for IPR filings that may follow.
Guangzhou v Hyperice — key questions answered
The case was filed on 15 August 2025 as a declaratory judgment action challenging US Patent No. 12,213,933. Within 33 days, the court granted a joint motion to consolidate the case with five related DJ actions involving the same patent and similar Amazon-sold massage gun products. The standalone docket was closed; proceedings continue in the consolidated matter.
US12213933B1 is a patent covering percussion massage gun technology, filed as application US18/760576. Hyperice IP Subco asserted it against multiple Amazon sellers, alleging their massage gun products infringe the patent. Six of those sellers responded by filing declaratory judgment actions seeking rulings of non-infringement and invalidity.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows consolidation of cases sharing common legal or factual questions. Here, all six DJ actions involve identical claims against US12213933B1. Consolidation means a single court proceeding will resolve validity and infringement for all six plaintiffs. An adverse ruling for Hyperice on validity would apply across all six actions simultaneously.
The case identifies six Amazon ASINs as the products at issue: B089KJTW4V, B08XB3ZV7X, B083L8RNJR, B0B2Z5JHN4, B0BWYPSWML, and B0BWYVNYW1 — all described as massage guns sold through Amazon. These represent Guangzhou Shirui’s specific product listings that Hyperice alleged infringed the ‘933 Patent.
The consolidation order is procedural and made no merits determination on validity or infringement. US12213933B1 remains active and enforceable as of the case closure date. The consolidated proceeding will determine whether the patent survives the invalidity challenge brought by the six plaintiff companies. Monitor the consolidated docket for further rulings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.