Hyper Ice v. Cotsoco: Massage Gun Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Cotsoco in the Central District of California, asserting US11857482B1 against a range of Cotsoco massage gun products. The case was dismissed without prejudice after just 97 days, before Cotsoco filed any responsive pleading.
Pre-Answer Dismissal in Hyperice Massage Gun Patent Case
On February 9, 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding subsidiary Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Cotsoco in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-00291). The complaint asserted US11857482B1 against Cotsoco’s line of percussive massage gun products, including the Mini Massage Gun, the 30 Speed Massage Gun, the Deep Tissue 30 Speed Massage Gun, and the 6 Speed Rechargeable Massage Gun.
On May 16, 2024 — just 97 days after filing — the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The plaintiffs confirmed that Cotsoco had not filed an answer, motion for summary judgment, or any other responsive pleading prior to the dismissal. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice means the case was terminated without any adjudication on the merits, and Hyperice retains the right to refile substantially the same claims in the future.
The 97-day duration and pre-answer timing suggest the dispute may have reached an informal resolution, or that the plaintiffs elected to withdraw for strategic reasons before incurring the costs of full litigation. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing agreement, or underlying commercial arrangement. Because the dismissal carries no prejudice, the patent remains fully enforceable and the infringement question against Cotsoco’s products remains legally unresolved.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 97 days
97 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — unilateral dismissal before any response
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Cotsoco had filed no responsive pleading, Hyperice held an absolute right to dismiss. No judicial approval was required, and no merits determination was made.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalThe ‘without prejudice’ designation preserves Hyperice’s options
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiffs are not barred from refiling the same infringement claims against Cotsoco in the future. The patent US11857482B1 remains valid and enforceable. Cotsoco receives no legal protection from this outcome — it is not an adjudication that Cotsoco does not infringe. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement, license, or undertaking accompanied the dismissal.
Claims may be refiledCotsoco avoids judgment — but faces ongoing exposure
Cotsoco did not obtain a dismissal with prejudice, a covenant not to sue, or any ruling that its massage gun products do not infringe US11857482B1. Without any such protection, Cotsoco remains exposed to a future enforcement action by Hyperice or any subsequent holder of the patent. The absence of defendant counsel on record suggests Cotsoco may not have engaged legal representation during this proceeding.
No infringement ruling obtainedStrategic ambiguity: settlement or regrouping?
The rapid pre-answer exit is consistent with either an out-of-court commercial resolution (such as a licensing deal or product withdrawal) or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or with a stronger claim set. Competitors and OEM suppliers in the percussive massage device market should monitor Hyperice’s future enforcement activity against US11857482B1, as the dismissal does not signal abandonment of the patent position.
Patent enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Percussive massage device company — holder of US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cotsoco | Individual | Consumer massage gun manufacturer and seller, including budget-tier percussive devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin A. Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence Robert LaPorte | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Barondess, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice confirms all procedural prerequisites for a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exit: Cotsoco had filed no answer, no summary judgment motion, and no other responsive pleading. The notice is self-executing — no court order was required. Critically, the ‘without prejudice’ designation means the underlying infringement allegations against Cotsoco’s massage gun products have never been tested on the merits, leaving both the patent’s enforceability and Cotsoco’s liability legally undetermined.
US11857482B1 — percussive massage gun device technology
US11857482B1 (application number US17/681367) is a granted US utility patent held by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC covering percussive massage gun technology. The patent is asserted against Cotsoco’s consumer-facing product range, which includes multi-speed and deep-tissue massage guns sold at accessible price points. Percussive therapy devices use rapid, repetitive strokes to deliver targeted muscle treatment — a technology segment that has expanded rapidly from professional sports recovery into mass-market consumer wellness.
For the percussive massage device sector, this patent represents a potential gating asset. Hyperice, as a leading brand in professional and consumer percussive therapy, has a commercial incentive to enforce differentiated IP against lower-cost competitors. The breadth of products named in the complaint — covering entry-level, mid-range, and deep-tissue SKUs — suggests the patent claims may be drafted to cover design patterns common across budget massage gun manufacturers, making it strategically significant for the wider market beyond Cotsoco alone.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing percussive massage guns for the US market should assess freedom-to-operate against US11857482B1. The products named in this action span entry-level to deep-tissue multi-speed devices — a range that overlaps with the product catalogues of many OEM suppliers, white-label brands, and direct-to-consumer massage gun sellers operating in the post-pandemic wellness boom.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11857482B1 against your product specifications, surface any design-around opportunities, and flag related patents in Hyperice’s portfolio that may present overlapping risk. Given the pre-answer dismissal and absence of any published claim construction, proactive FTO analysis is especially important before launching or scaling massage gun product lines in the US market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Percussive Massage Device Patent Cases in US Federal Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving percussive therapy and massage device IP filed in California federal courts and across US jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the percussive massage device IP landscape
Hyperice’s aggressive pre-answer filing and rapid withdrawal raises questions about enforcement strategy and licensing leverage in the booming massage gun market.
US11857482B1 remains a live enforcement risk for massage gun makers
The dismissal without prejudice does nothing to neutralise the patent. Any company manufacturing or importing percussive massage guns into the US market — particularly those with multi-speed or deep-tissue product lines similar to Cotsoco’s — should treat this case as a signal that Hyperice is actively monitoring the competitive landscape.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal off-record commercial resolution
The 97-day window with no defendant counsel on record is consistent with a quick licensing conversation or product modification agreement. However, because the public record is silent on terms, there is no confirmation. R&D and product teams at competitors should not assume the dispute ended favourably for the market.
Hyper v Cotsoco — key questions answered
A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means Hyperice can refile substantially the same infringement claims against Cotsoco in the future. No merits ruling was made and the patent US11857482B1 remains fully enforceable. Cotsoco obtained no legal protection from this outcome.
The complaint named the Cotsoco Mini Massage Gun, the 30 Speed Massage Gun, the Deep Tissue 30 Speed Massage Gun, and the 6 Speed Rechargeable Massage Gun as accused products in the infringement action brought by Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal after 97 days is consistent with an out-of-court resolution such as a licensing agreement or product withdrawal, or a strategic decision to refile with a stronger claim set. No settlement terms are publicly available.
The use of a dedicated IP holding subsidiary as co-plaintiff alongside the operating entity Hyper Ice, Inc. suggests a structured IP monetisation strategy. This architecture is commonly associated with licensing-focused enforcement models and may indicate a broader programme of enforcement against mass-market massage gun competitors.
Potentially yes. The patent was asserted against a wide range of Cotsoco product types — from entry-level to deep-tissue multi-speed devices — suggesting claims that may be broadly applicable across the category. Other manufacturers and importers of percussive massage guns sold in the US market should conduct FTO analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.