Hyper Ice v. Costco: Percussive Massager Patent Suit Stayed After 134 Days
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against Costco Wholesale in the Western District of Texas asserting US11857482B1, a patent covering percussive massage device technology. The court granted a joint stay after just 134 days, tying the Costco case to the outcome of three parallel infringement actions in California and Michigan.
Hyperice’s multi-front massager IP campaign reaches Costco
On January 16, 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation in the Western District of Texas before Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The complaint asserted US11857482B1, a patent covering percussive massager technology, against Costco’s retail offerings including the Bondir R2 Pro and Sharper Image Power Percussion Pro+ Hot + Cold Percussion Massager, as well as several Therabody-branded products.
Rather than litigating the Costco case to a merits ruling, both parties jointly moved to stay proceedings on May 29, 2024 — just 134 days after filing. The court granted the stay, administratively closing the case pending resolution of three parallel Hyperice actions: one against Therabody in the Central District of California, one against MerchSource also in C.D. Cal., and one against FKA Distributing in the Eastern District of Michigan. The stay is without prejudice to either party moving to lift it for good cause.
The rapid agreement to stay suggests the Costco case may be viewed as derivative of the Therabody and MerchSource actions — particularly given that Therabody products appear among the accused Costco SKUs. The public record does not disclose whether licensing discussions are underway or whether the stay reflects a broader litigation coordination strategy. The outcome of the California and Michigan proceedings will be determinative of whether this case is ever revived.
Filing to Case Stayed in 134 days
134 days to stay order — faster than typical W.D. Texas patent resolution
Case stayed: what the administrative closure means for both parties
Administrative stay ≠ dismissal — the case is paused, not resolved
A court-ordered stay administratively closes the docket but does not terminate the litigation or adjudicate any claims. The case remains live and can be reopened by either party for good cause, or automatically when the triggering conditions — final judgment or dismissal in the three parallel Hyperice actions — are satisfied. No findings on infringement, validity, or damages have been made.
No merits rulingHyperice preserves its claims while consolidating litigation resources
By agreeing to the stay, Hyperice avoids litigating the same patent on multiple simultaneous fronts. A favourable ruling in the California or Michigan actions — particularly against Therabody, whose products also appear in the Costco complaint — could strengthen or moot the Costco case. Hyperice retains the right to reactivate the action and has not waived any claims.
Claims preservedCostco gains a reprieve but faces renewed exposure if parallel suits succeed
The stay relieves Costco of near-term litigation costs and discovery obligations. However, administrative closure is not a win on the merits. If Hyperice prevails against upstream suppliers like Therabody or MerchSource — whose products Costco retailed — Costco may face renewed or reinforced claims when the stay lifts. Downstream retailers often remain exposed even after supplier-level resolutions.
Exposure contingentPercussive massager IP: upstream supplier outcomes will shape retailer risk
This case illustrates how patent enforcement in consumer wellness hardware can cascade from brand owners to mass-market retailers. Big-box retailers carrying third-party percussive devices should monitor the Central District of California Therabody and MerchSource proceedings closely — their outcomes will determine whether US11857482B1 claims reach Costco’s shelves again. Indemnification provisions in retail supply agreements become critically important in this posture.
Watch C.D. Cal. proceedingsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Percussive wellness device company — holder of US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Costco Wholesale, Corp. | Company | Costco Wholesale Corp. — multinational big-box retail operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Allen Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Barondess, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ari B. Rafilson | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brett Aaron Mangrum | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William D. Ellerman | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a consensual procedural pause rather than any adjudication of the merits. The stay is conditioned on the resolution of three parallel Hyperice infringement actions, meaning the Costco case remains contingent on external docket outcomes. The ‘without prejudice’ carve-out for good-cause motions preserves tactical flexibility for both parties. No findings on infringement, patent validity, or claim scope have been made in this proceeding.
US11857482B1 — Percussive massage device technology
US11857482B1, filed under application number US17/681367, covers percussive massager device technology — the core mechanism behind handheld therapeutic tools that deliver rapid, targeted percussive force to muscle tissue. The patent is held by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, a dedicated IP vehicle within the Hyper Ice corporate group, a structure that typically signals an active licensing and enforcement programme. The patent’s grant as a B1 publication indicates it issued without prior publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined prosecution history.
Percussive massage devices have become a high-growth consumer wellness category, with major players including Therabody, Hyperice, Ekrin, and private-label manufacturers supplying mass-market retailers. A broadly enforced patent in this space — asserted simultaneously against Therabody, MerchSource, FKA Distributing, and Costco — could reshape competitive dynamics and licensing economics across the segment. Competitors developing or sourcing percussion-based therapy hardware should treat US11857482B1 as a live enforcement risk pending the California and Michigan outcomes.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or retailing percussive massage devices should evaluate freedom-to-operate against US11857482B1 before launch or continued distribution. Hyperice has demonstrated willingness to sue both direct competitors and large downstream retailers simultaneously. The fact that Therabody-branded products appear as accused SKUs in the Costco action suggests the patent’s scope may reach devices from multiple OEM origins — not just Hyperice-competing flagship brands.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map claim language from US11857482B1 against product specifications, identify potentially distinguishing prior art, and monitor prosecution history for scope-limiting amendments. With three parallel proceedings actively developing claim construction positions, real-time docket monitoring via Eureka can ensure your FTO analysis stays current as the legal landscape evolves.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar percussive device patent infringement cases in federal court
Cases involving percussive massage and handheld therapeutic device patents litigated in federal district courts, including W.D. Texas and C.D. California.
What this case signals for the percussive wellness device IP landscape
Hyperice’s coordinated multi-jurisdiction campaign signals an aggressive IP monetisation posture across the percussive massager category.
Coordinated multi-front enforcement is Hyperice’s stated strategy
Filing simultaneous actions against Therabody, MerchSource, FKA Distributing, and Costco within weeks of each other suggests Hyperice is pursuing a category-wide enforcement campaign around US11857482B1. Companies in the percussive massage or handheld therapeutic device space should treat this as a signal that Hyperice is actively asserting its IP portfolio broadly.
Retailers carrying percussive devices face derivative infringement risk
The Costco action demonstrates that downstream retailers are not insulated from patent exposure even when they source from established brands. Any retailer stocking Therabody, Bondir, or similar percussive massager SKUs should review indemnification terms with suppliers and assess whether the products in question are subject to the Hyperice enforcement campaign.
Hyper v Costco — key questions answered
The case is administratively closed following a court-ordered stay granted on May 29, 2024. The stay remains in effect pending dismissal or final judgment in three parallel Hyperice actions in C.D. Cal. and E.D. Mich. No merits rulings have been issued. Either party may move to lift the stay for good cause.
Hyperice asserts US11857482B1, filed under application US17/681367, which covers percussive massage device technology. The patent is owned by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, a dedicated IP subsidiary of Hyper Ice, Inc.
The complaint identifies the Bondir R2 Pro Percussive Massager, Sharper Image Power Percussion Pro+ Hot + Cold Percussion Massager, Therabody TheraFace PRO LED, Theragun Mini, and Theragun Pro as accused products sold through Costco’s retail channels.
Both parties jointly moved for the stay, which the court granted finding good cause. The stay runs until the later of dismissal or final judgment in Hyper Ice v. Therabody (C.D. Cal.), Hyper Ice v. MerchSource (C.D. Cal.), and Hyper Ice v. FKA Distributing (E.D. Mich.). Either party may also move to lift the stay for good cause before those conditions are met.
The stay does not eliminate Costco’s legal exposure — it defers it. Other retailers carrying Therabody, Bondir, or similar percussive device brands should monitor the parallel California and Michigan proceedings, which will determine claim scope under US11857482B1 and may trigger renewed enforcement against downstream retail channels.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.