Guangzhou Talong v. Hyperice IP: Massage Gun Patent Action Ends in 8 Days
Guangzhou Talong Technology and three co-plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against Hyperice IP Subco in the Central District of California, asserting US11938082B1 covering massage gun technology across five Amazon ASINs. The case was voluntarily dismissed in its entirety just 8 days after filing — one of the shortest lifespans on record for a district court infringement action.
An 8-day massage gun patent dispute that raises more questions than it answers
On 19 June 2024, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., and Toloco Inc. jointly filed a patent infringement complaint against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The asserted patent, US11938082B1, relates to massage gun technology, and the complaint targeted five specific Amazon product listings operated or associated with Hyperice.
On 27 June 2024 — just eight days after filing — the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, terminating the action in its entirety. The public docket records the termination basis as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. No defendant counsel of record appears in the docket, which is consistent with a dismissal filed before the defendant had appeared or answered.
The eight-day duration strongly suggests the action was resolved or abandoned before it could meaningfully progress — potentially indicating a pre-filing settlement, a licensing arrangement reached quickly after filing, or a strategic decision to withdraw before service was completed. The absence of any defendant agent or law firm in the record leaves the precise commercial rationale unknown from publicly available information alone.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 8 days
8 days — exceptionally short; median patent cases run 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the silent record means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal before defendant appearance — Rule 41 context
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The docket shows no defendant counsel or response on record, suggesting this dismissal pathway was available. The notice states the action is dismissed ‘in its entirety,’ but does not specify with or without prejudice.
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissalWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ permanently bars re-filing the same claims; ‘without prejudice’ preserves the right to refile. Under Rule 41(a)(1), a first voluntary dismissal is typically treated as without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise. However, the filed notice and docket entry in this case do not explicitly specify either designation, meaning the operative legal effect requires examination of the actual filing — which the public docket summary does not resolve.
Prejudice status unconfirmedPlaintiffs exit before litigation costs accumulate
The four plaintiffs — including Toloco Inc., a brand with a significant Amazon presence in percussive massage devices — withdrew before any substantive proceedings. This limits litigation exposure but also means no judicial finding on infringement or validity of US11938082B1 was reached. If the dismissal was without prejudice, the patent remains available for future enforcement actions against Hyperice or other parties.
No merits adjudicationHyperice exits without responding — no admission, no ruling
Hyperice IP Subco faced no requirement to respond within the case’s eight-day lifespan and has no adverse finding on record. The five accused Amazon ASINs — massage gun products — remain on the market without any injunction or damages award. The swift dismissal may suggest a commercial resolution was reached quietly, or that plaintiffs reconsidered their enforcement position, but neither scenario can be confirmed from the public record.
No injunction or damagesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer — holder of US11938082B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC — IP holding entity associated with Hyperice, a leading percussive therapy and recovery device brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tianyu Ju | Attorney | Counsel for Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice states the action is terminated ‘in its entirety’ by the plaintiffs, which confirms all asserted claims and all accused products are included in the withdrawal. No finding of infringement, validity, or damages was made. The absence of any ‘with prejudice’ language in the docket summary is notable — under Rule 41(a)(1), this is typically interpreted as without prejudice, though the operative text of the filed notice governs. Neither party received a judicial determination on the merits of US11938082B1.
US11938082B1 — Percussive Massage Gun Device Technology
US11938082B1 is a United States patent with application number US18/515112, granted to the plaintiff group and directed to percussive therapy massage gun technology. The patent carries a B1 designation, indicating it was granted without prior publication — meaning the claims as granted were not previously published in a separate application. This suggests the claims may be narrow and refined relative to prior art, but also that competitors had limited advance notice of the patent’s scope prior to grant.
The percussive massage device market has grown rapidly, with Chinese OEM manufacturers and US consumer brands competing intensely on Amazon and other e-commerce platforms. A granted US patent in this space — particularly one held jointly by a manufacturing group and a US-facing brand like Toloco — represents meaningful enforcement leverage. The fact that this patent was asserted against Hyperice IP Subco, a major brand in recovery technology, suggests the patent holder views its claims as covering commercially significant product features rather than peripheral design elements.
Should your team run an FTO against US11938082B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling percussive massage guns or handheld percussive therapy devices in the United States should consider this patent a live risk. US11938082B1 was asserted against five specific Amazon ASINs associated with a major brand, and the case ended without any invalidity or non-infringement finding. The patent’s presumption of validity is fully intact. Brands selling in this category — particularly on Amazon — are potential targets for future enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US11938082B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag related applications in the same patent family. For product teams developing next-generation massage gun features, Eureka can also surface design-around opportunities before a product reaches market — reducing litigation exposure at the earliest possible stage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11938082B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Massage Gun & Percussive Device Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving percussive therapy and massage gun technology filed in U.S. district courts, including the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the percussive therapy device IP landscape
Ultra-short patent filings in consumer electronics often signal leverage-driven enforcement strategies — or rapid private resolution.
Eight-day dismissals are a pattern worth monitoring in consumer device IP
Cases dismissed within days of filing — before service is even confirmed — frequently indicate pre-filing negotiations that concluded upon filing, or a rapid reassessment of litigation risk. In the crowded massage gun and percussive therapy sector, where multiple Chinese OEMs and US brands compete on Amazon, this pattern suggests active behind-the-scenes IP licensing activity that never surfaces in public verdicts.
US11938082B1 remains live and unlitigated — FTO exposure persists
Because no court ruled on the validity or scope of US11938082B1, the patent retains full presumption of validity. Competitors in the percussive massage device space — particularly those selling on Amazon — cannot rely on this case as precedent for non-infringement. An FTO analysis against this patent remains a prudent step for any brand with products in this category.
Guangzhou v Hyperice — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in its entirety on 27 June 2024, just 8 days after filing on 19 June 2024. No defendant response was filed. The action concerned alleged infringement of US11938082B1 relating to massage gun technology across five Amazon product listings. No merits ruling was issued.
US11938082B1 is a granted US patent with application number US18/515112, covering percussive therapy massage gun device technology. The B1 designation indicates it was granted without prior publication. It was asserted by Guangzhou Talong Technology and co-plaintiffs against Hyperice IP Subco’s massage gun products sold on Amazon.
The public docket records the basis of termination as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying whether it was with or without prejudice. Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1), a first voluntary dismissal filed before the defendant has answered is typically treated as without prejudice, but the operative text of the filed notice governs. The public record does not confirm either designation.
The case lasted only 8 days and was dismissed before the defendant filed any response. This pattern is consistent with several scenarios: a pre-existing or rapidly negotiated licensing agreement, a strategic decision to withdraw before incurring significant litigation costs, or a reassessment of enforcement position. The public record does not disclose the commercial rationale behind the dismissal.
The complaint identified five Amazon ASINs as accused products: B083L8RNJR, B083LKVPJV, B0BWYPSWML, B0BWYVNYW1, and B089KJTW4V — all described as massage guns. No court made any finding of infringement with respect to these products, and the case was dismissed before any substantive proceedings occurred.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.