Guangzhou Talong v. Hyperice IP: Six Massage Gun Sellers Consolidated Against US12213933
Six Chinese Amazon sellers collectively filed declaratory judgment actions against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 covering massage gun technology. The Western District of Washington consolidated all six cases for pretrial purposes within 33 days of filing — a coordination move that reshapes the enforcement calculus for both sides.
Six Amazon Sellers Unite to Challenge Hyperice’s Massage Gun Patent
On August 15, 2025, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. filed Case No. 2:25-cv-01565 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. The dispute centres on U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 (the ‘933 Patent), which Hyperice had reportedly been asserting against sellers of massage gun products sold through Amazon. Talong’s products at issue are identified by Amazon ASINs B08XB3ZV7X, B083L8RNJR, B089KJTW4V, and B0B2Z5JHN4.
On September 17, 2025 — just 33 days after filing — Judge Kymberly K. Evanson granted a Stipulation and Joint Motion to Consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), combining six related declaratory judgment actions for pretrial purposes. The lead case is Toloco Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (No. 2:25-cv-01560-KKE). The docket for this individual case was effectively closed as a standalone proceeding, with all future pretrial filings directed to the lead docket. Importantly, consolidation does not merge the cases for trial or final judgment — each plaintiff retains individual claims and rights.
The speed of consolidation suggests the parties were aligned on procedural efficiency from an early stage, consistent with coordinated litigation strategy among the six Chinese sellers. The public record does not reveal whether Hyperice had sent formal cease-and-desist letters or demand letters to each seller prior to filing, nor does it disclose the specific claim scope being contested. The fact that six separate entities filed near-simultaneous declaratory judgment actions in the same district strongly suggests coordinated counsel strategy, likely in response to Hyperice’s Amazon enforcement campaign targeting the ‘933 Patent.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 33 days
33-day consolidation order — notably rapid pre-trial coordination for a multi-party patent dispute
Rule 42(a) consolidation: what the pretrial merger means for both sides
Rule 42(a) consolidation for pretrial — not a full merger
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits a court to consolidate actions sharing common questions of law or fact. Here, all six cases turn on the validity and infringement scope of the same patent — US12213933 — making consolidation straightforward. Critically, the order limits consolidation to pretrial purposes only. Each plaintiff’s claims remain legally distinct, preserving the right to separate trial and judgment. This is a procedural efficiency measure, not a substantive ruling on the merits.
Pretrial only — no merits decidedCoordinated plaintiffs gain shared discovery and reduced costs
Consolidation benefits the six Amazon sellers by allowing them to pool litigation resources, share discovery, and present unified claim construction arguments against the ‘933 Patent. A single consolidated pretrial record on invalidity and non-infringement reduces duplication and cost. However, each plaintiff must still independently prove its own products do not infringe, and any invalidity finding would benefit all six. The 33-day timeline to consolidation suggests coordinated preparation prior to filing.
Shared pretrial resourcesHyperice now faces a consolidated challenge to the ‘933 Patent
For Hyperice IP Subco, consolidation means defending the ‘933 Patent’s validity and enforceability on a single consolidated pretrial record against six adversaries simultaneously. While it may streamline proceedings for the court, it concentrates invalidation risk — a single adverse claim construction or invalidity ruling could affect all six actions. Hyperice filed counterclaims in these cases, and plaintiffs were ordered to respond within seven days of the consolidation order, signalling active contested proceedings ahead.
Single invalidity record — elevated riskAmazon marketplace patent enforcement faces organised resistance
This consolidation pattern — multiple Chinese Amazon sellers simultaneously filing declaratory judgment actions in a single district — is consistent with an emerging counter-strategy to Amazon platform-level patent enforcement campaigns. If the ‘933 Patent is invalidated or narrowed in the lead case, the commercial benefit extends to the broader Amazon massage gun market beyond these six sellers. IP holders in the percussive therapy and consumer wellness hardware space should monitor the claim construction proceedings closely.
Amazon enforcement landscape shiftFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd | Company | Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer — seller of massage guns on Amazon, declaratory judgment plaintiff against US12213933Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC — IP holding entity asserting US Patent No. 12,213,933 covering massage gun technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Talong Technology Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guangzhou Talong 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 under Rule 42(a) is purely procedural — the court made no finding on infringement, validity, or enforceability of US12213933. The order’s language that consolidation ‘will best serve judicial economy’ and ‘shall not merge the cases into a single action for trial or judgment’ is significant: it preserves each seller’s individual legal exposure while creating a unified pretrial record. For Hyperice, this means a single claim construction ruling will govern all six disputes. For the plaintiffs, a successful invalidity showing in the consolidated proceeding would benefit all parties simultaneously.
US12213933B1 — Massage Gun Percussive Therapy Device Patent
U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 (application no. US18/760576) is a utility patent held through Hyperice IP Subco, LLC covering massage gun technology in the percussive therapy consumer wellness hardware space. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it issued without prior publication, suggesting a relatively rapid prosecution path. Percussive therapy devices — commonly known as massage guns — have become a high-volume consumer electronics category, particularly on Amazon, where hundreds of competing SKUs coexist at various price points. The ‘933 Patent’s claims, as yet unconstrued by the court, define the boundary of Hyperice’s exclusivity in this space.
The strategic significance of US12213933 lies in Hyperice’s apparent use of it as an enforcement tool against Amazon marketplace sellers rather than direct retail competitors. By asserting the patent through an IP subco entity, Hyperice has structurally separated its enforcement activity from its core operating business — a common IP monetisation structure. With six sellers now challenging the patent simultaneously, the ‘933 Patent faces its most concentrated validity test to date. A successful invalidation outcome would remove a significant IP barrier for Chinese-manufactured massage gun products competing on Amazon in the U.S. market.
Should your product team run an FTO against US12213933?
Any company designing, importing, or selling massage guns — particularly percussive therapy devices listed on Amazon — should assess exposure to US12213933 before launching new SKUs or expanding existing product lines in the U.S. market. The fact that Hyperice has already asserted this patent against at least six Amazon sellers indicates active enforcement intent. Even if the patent is ultimately invalidated or narrowed in the consolidated proceeding, that outcome may take 12–24 months to resolve. Launching without an FTO analysis during that window carries real commercial risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map the claim scope of US12213933 against your specific device configurations — including motor type, percussive frequency, attachment head design, and housing geometry. Eureka can identify prior art that overlaps with the ‘933 Patent’s claims, surface related family members, and flag any continuation or divisional applications that could extend Hyperice’s coverage. Run a targeted FTO now to assess whether your massage gun products fall within the contested claim scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12213933B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Declaratory Judgment Cases: Massage Gun & Consumer Wellness Patent Disputes
Cases involving declaratory judgment challenges to massage gun and percussive therapy device patents in U.S. district courts, including the Western District of Washington.
What this case signals for the consumer wellness and Amazon IP landscape
A coordinated six-plaintiff declaratory judgment offensive signals that Amazon sellers are increasingly willing to litigate rather than capitulate on patent demands.
Simultaneous DJ filings suggest organised seller coalition strategy
All six cases were filed on or around August 15, 2025, by separate Chinese sellers represented by coordinated counsel, including Glacier Law LLP. This pattern is consistent with a pre-litigation coalition response to a patent holder’s enforcement campaign — a model increasingly used to spread litigation costs and consolidate invalidity arguments against a single patent.
Consolidation accelerates claim construction — watch the lead case docket
With Toloco Inc. v. Hyperice IP (2:25-cv-01560) designated as lead case, all future pretrial activity — including claim construction briefing on US12213933 — will appear there. Patent practitioners and competitors monitoring the ‘933 Patent’s enforceability should track the lead docket, not the individual case numbers.
Guangzhou v Hyperice — key questions answered
Case 2:25-cv-01565 was closed as a standalone docket on September 17, 2025, when Judge Kymberly K. Evanson granted consolidation under Rule 42(a). The case was merged for pretrial purposes into the lead case, Toloco Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (No. 2:25-cv-01560-KKE). Substantive proceedings on non-infringement and invalidity of US12213933 continue in the lead docket.
The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 12,213,933 (application no. US18/760576), held by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. All six consolidated cases involve declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement and invalidity against this patent, which covers massage gun technology in the percussive therapy consumer wellness hardware category.
Rule 42(a) consolidation allows cases with common questions of law or fact to be managed together. Here, consolidation is for pretrial purposes only — it does not merge the cases for trial or judgment. Each of the six plaintiffs retains independent claims and the right to separate adjudication, but all share a common pretrial record, reducing duplication in discovery and claim construction briefing against US12213933.
The near-simultaneous filing of six declaratory judgment actions on or around August 15, 2025, is consistent with a coordinated litigation strategy by Chinese Amazon sellers facing Hyperice’s enforcement campaign based on US12213933. By filing together in the same district, the sellers could consolidate resources, share invalidity arguments, and force a single claim construction proceeding — materially increasing the pressure on the patent holder compared to serial one-on-one disputes.
Guangzhou Talong Technology’s case identifies four massage gun products sold on Amazon, identified by ASINs B08XB3ZV7X, B083L8RNJR, B089KJTW4V, and B0B2Z5JHN4. These products are alleged by Hyperice to infringe US Patent No. 12,213,933. The court has not yet made any finding on infringement; the cases remain in pretrial proceedings under the consolidated lead docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.