Book a demo
Hyper Ice v. Cotsoco — Massage Gun Patent Transfer | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-01158
FiledFeb 2024
ClosedFeb 2024
Patent Litigation

Hyper Ice v. Cotsoco: Massage Gun Patent Case Transferred in 3 Days

Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against Cotsoco asserting US11857482B1, covering rechargeable percussive massage gun technology including the Hypervolt 2 line. The case was reassigned from the Central to the Southern Division of the California district court within three days of filing — before any substantive proceedings occurred.

Resolution time
3days
Transferred before any substantive proceeding; faster than the typical 60–90-day initial scheduling period.
Patents asserted
1
US11857482B1 — Hypervolt-series rechargeable percussive massage gun technology
Outcome
Case Transferred
Reassigned to Southern Division as 8:24-cv-00291 FWS (DFMx); no merits ruling issued.
Cost ruling
No Cost Order
No costs or fees awarded; transfer was administrative, not adjudicated on the merits.
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Administrative transfer ends before the case begins — litigation continues

On 9 February 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Cotsoco in the Central District of California. The complaint asserted US11857482B1, a patent covering rechargeable percussive massage gun technology associated with the Hypervolt 2, Hypervolt 2 Pro, Hypervolt Go 2, and related massage gun products.

Just three days after filing, on 12 February 2024, the court issued a transfer notice. A clerical error had caused the case to be provisionally assigned to the wrong division. Pursuant to the court’s General Order on case assignment, the matter was reassigned to the Southern Division and given a new case number — 8:24-cv-00291 — with Judge Fred W. Slaughter presiding and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick handling discovery and post-judgment matters.

The three-day duration reflects purely procedural timing rather than any substantive development. No pleadings were adjudicated, no defendant counsel appeared, and no merits analysis occurred. The underlying infringement claims against Cotsoco — spanning multiple massage gun SKUs — remain live under the new docket. Public records are silent on any pre-filing settlement discussions or claim scope negotiations.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-01158
DefendantCotsoco
CourtCalifornia Central
JudgeN/A
FiledFebruary 9, 2024
ClosedFebruary 12, 2024
Duration3 days
OutcomeCase Transferred
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Transferred
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / California Central District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Transferred in 3 days

Transferred before any substantive proceeding; faster than the typical 60–90-day initial scheduling period.

Case timeline: Complaint filed FEB 9 2024, FEB–MAR — 3 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Hyper Ice, Inc. v Cotsoco from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, California Central District Court. FEB 9 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings FEB 12 2024 Case Transferred 3 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

What a venue transfer means: case continues under new docket number

Legal mechanism

Divisional transfer is administrative, not a merits ruling

The Central District of California is divided into geographic divisions. When a case is filed in the wrong division, the court’s General Order mandates reassignment without any hearing or adjudication. No judgment was entered, no motion was decided, and no rights were affected. The infringement claims survive intact and proceed under case number 8:24-cv-00291 in the Southern Division.

Procedural reassignment only
Venue implications

Southern Division reassignment shifts the judicial forum

The Southern Division of the Central District covers Orange County and surrounding areas. Assignment to Judge Fred W. Slaughter and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick means both parties now operate under those judges’ standing orders, scheduling preferences, and claim construction practices. Any filed documents after the transfer date must carry the new case number or risk not being reviewed by the court.

Judge Slaughter, Southern Division
What happens next

Substantive litigation begins at the new docket

With the transfer complete, Cotsoco must be served and respond to the complaint under the new case number. A scheduling conference, claim construction briefing for US11857482B1, and discovery into the accused massage gun products will all occur under docket 8:24-cv-00291. The three-day lifespan of case 2:24-cv-01158 reflects no strategic development — it was solely an administrative correction.

Litigation ongoing under new number
Commercial implications

Patent enforcement against massage gun rivals continues

Hyper Ice’s decision to assert US11857482B1 against Cotsoco’s competing massage gun range suggests an active enforcement posture protecting the Hypervolt product line. For other companies selling rechargeable percussive massage guns — particularly multi-speed devices marketed as deep-tissue tools — the transfer does not reduce the litigation risk. The underlying patent remains asserted and the case is proceeding.

Enforcement posture active
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-01158 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffHyper Ice, Inc.CompanyPercussive wellness device maker — holder of US11857482B1 covering massage gun technologySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffHyperice IP Subco, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantCotsocoIndividualCotsoco — accused seller of competing rechargeable percussive massage gun productsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBenjamin A. HerbertAttorneyCounsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLawrence Robert LaPorteAttorneyCounsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMiller Barondess, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCalifornia Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“All Counsel Appearing of Record Due to clerical error, this case was improperly assigned to the Division of this District. Pursuant to this Court’s General Order in the Matter of Assignment of Cases and Duties to District Judges, this case is hereby transferred to the Division for all further proceedings. X Case was opened in the CM/ECF System by counsel, and provisionally assigned to a division of this Court. After review of the pleadings, pursuant to the General Orders of the Court, this case is hereby transferred to the Southern Division. This case has been reassigned to case number 8:24−cv−00291 FWS (DFMx) and has been assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter for all further proceedings. Any matters that are or may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are hereby assigned to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick for: X any discovery and/or post-judgment matters that may be referred. for all proceedings in accordance with General Order 05-07. All subsequent documents filed must reflect the new case number and newly assigned District Judge’s/Magistrate Judge’s initials as follows: 8:24−cv−00291 FWS (DFMx) . Unless documents are exempted from electronic filing, they must be filed electronically on the docket under the new case number. Please be advised that no further filings may be made under case number 2:24−cv−01158 . Any such filings made after the date of entry of this Notice may not be reviewed or considered by the Court.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-01158, California Central District Court

The transfer order records no merits finding, claim construction, or infringement analysis. The court’s language — citing a ‘clerical error’ in divisional assignment — confirms this was a purely administrative correction under the General Order on case assignment. No inference about claim strength, defendant liability, or likely outcome can be drawn from this order. The controlling proceeding is now 8:24-cv-00291 before Judge Slaughter.

PACER case 2:24-cv-01158 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11857482B1 — Rechargeable Percussive Massage Gun Technology

Publication No.US11857482B1
Application No.US17/681367
Patent details
ProductRechargeable multi-speed percussive massage gun with variable-speed motor and interchangeable attachments
Cited in actionFebruary 9, 2024

US11857482B1, filed under application number US17/681367, protects rechargeable percussive massage gun technology associated with Hyperice’s Hypervolt product family. The patent’s issuance and near-immediate assertion in litigation — with the case filed within the same commercial cycle as the patent grant — suggests Hyperice prioritised enforcement as part of its product protection strategy. The technical domain covers motorised handheld percussion devices designed for soft-tissue recovery and deep-tissue massage.

The commercial stakes are significant: the percussive massage device market has attracted dozens of entrants selling competing products at multiple price points, many bearing functional and aesthetic similarities to the Hypervolt line. Hyperice’s assertion of this patent against a product range spanning entry-level massage guns through 30-speed deep-tissue models indicates broad claim coverage. For IP teams at consumer wellness and sports recovery device companies, this patent warrants close monitoring as the litigation progresses to claim construction.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO against US11857482B1?

Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing rechargeable multi-speed percussive massage guns — particularly devices marketed for deep-tissue recovery — should treat US11857482B1 as a live clearance risk. The asserted product list in this case spans six distinct SKUs, suggesting the patent’s independent claims are drafted broadly enough to cover a range of speed configurations and form factors. An FTO analysis is warranted before new product launch or market entry.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11857482B1 against your product specifications, flag prior art that may support an IPR petition, and identify design-around pathways — particularly around motor control, speed-switching mechanisms, and battery integration. Given that the case has now transferred to an active docket, the window for strategic FTO and IPR preparation is open now.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Massage Gun & Consumer Wellness Device Patent Cases

Cases involving percussive massage gun and handheld recovery device patents in the Central and Southern Districts of California, including comparable enforcement actions.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Hyper Ice, Inc. patent enforcement history, California Central case history, Hyper Ice, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Hypervolt prior litigationMassage gun IPR filingsC.D. Cal device patent casesPercussive device FTO map
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the percussive wellness device IP landscape

Hyper Ice’s rapid filing and enforcement of US11857482B1 indicates an active portfolio strategy targeting competing massage gun sellers.

Hyperice is actively enforcing its massage gun patent portfolio

Filing against Cotsoco within weeks of patent grant — US11857482B1 issued with application number US17/681367 — suggests Hyperice monitors the market for competitive products closely. Companies selling multi-speed rechargeable massage guns should treat this filing as an early signal of broader enforcement activity.

Administrative transfer does not reduce litigation risk for defendants

A divisional transfer carries no merits implication. Cotsoco faces the same infringement claims under the new docket. Any competitor watching this case for a favourable early outcome will find none — the substantive phase has not yet begun and the patent remains fully asserted.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on percussive device patent risk and Southern Division enforcement trends for this district court case.
Claim scope risk mapDesign-around analysisJudge Slaughter patent history
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Hyper v Cotsoco — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track the Hyperice massage gun patent case as it develops

The substantive litigation against Cotsoco is now active under docket 8:24-cv-00291. Use PatSnap Eureka to monitor claim construction, run FTO analysis on US11857482B1, and stay ahead of enforcement risk across the percussive wellness device market.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.