Hyper Ice v. CVS Health: Percussive Massage Patent Action Dismissed in 35 Days
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against CVS Health Corporation in the Western District of Texas, asserting two patents covering percussive massage devices with variable stroke length. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice just 35 days after filing — before CVS filed any responsive pleading.
Swift pre-answer dismissal in the percussive massage device IP space
On 16 January 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against CVS Health Corporation in the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The plaintiffs asserted two patents: US11857482B1, covering a massage device with variable stroke length, and design patent USD0886317S, covering the ornamental appearance of a percussive massage device. CVS Health, one of the largest retail pharmacy and health product distributors in the United States, was alleged to have infringed through its sale or distribution of competing percussive massage products.
On 20 February 2024 — just 35 days after filing — the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This procedural vehicle is available as of right when the defendant has not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs expressly confirmed in their notice. The dismissal was entered without any recorded cost ruling, and no settlement terms are reflected in the public record.
A 35-day lifespan is exceptionally short, even for cases resolved before substantive proceedings. The use of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — requiring no court approval — suggests the plaintiffs acted unilaterally and swiftly, which may indicate a commercial negotiation reached outside the litigation, a strategic recalibration of venue or claims, or a decision to refile in a different forum. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the underlying patent claims remain live and enforceable, and the public record is silent on what, if anything, was agreed between the parties.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 35 days
Case closed before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss a case unilaterally — without court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Hyper Ice expressly confirmed CVS had filed neither, making this a clean, automatic dismissal. The court played no adjudicative role in the termination.
Plaintiff-initiated, pre-answerWithout prejudice: the door remains open for Hyper Ice
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims on the same patents against CVS Health in the future. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would extinguish those claims permanently. The public record does not specify whether this reflects a negotiated outcome or a unilateral strategic decision — both are consistent with the procedural posture observed here.
Claims remain livePre-answer exit suggests a deliberate tactical move
Filing and then withdrawing within 35 days — before any responsive pleading — is consistent with several scenarios: a licensing discussion that progressed faster than expected, a decision to refile in a different jurisdiction, or a re-evaluation of claim scope against this particular defendant. The absence of any defendant counsel on record further suggests CVS may never have formally engaged with the litigation before it concluded.
Possible off-docket resolutionTwo patents remain fully enforceable post-dismissal
US11857482B1 (utility) and USD0886317S (design) were not subjected to any validity challenge, claim construction, or court ruling during this case. Both patents exit the litigation entirely unscathed from a legal standpoint. Hyper Ice retains full enforcement rights and could assert either patent again against CVS Health or other percussive massage device distributors.
No validity ruling issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Wearable recovery tech company — holder of US11857482B1 and USD0886317SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CVS Health Corp. | Company | CVS Health Corp. — major U.S. retail pharmacy and consumer health product distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Allen Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms CVS Health filed no answer, summary judgment motion, or other responsive pleading. This means the court entered no ruling on the merits of infringement, patent validity, or claim scope. For CVS Health, the practical result is a clean exit from this specific action — but with no res judicata protection against future filings on the same patents. For Hyper Ice, both asserted patents remain fully intact and immediately re-assertable.
US11857482B1 & USD0886317S — Percussive Massage Device Patents
US11857482B1 is a utility patent protecting a massage device with a variable stroke length mechanism — a functional differentiator in the percussive therapy category that affects both the feel and therapeutic efficacy of the device. Application number US17/681367 places its filing in the post-pandemic recovery tech boom, a period of rapid innovation in at-home wellness devices. USD0886317S is a design patent (application US29/716546) protecting the ornamental appearance of a percussive massage device, giving Hyper Ice protection over the visual identity of its product line in addition to its functional architecture.
Together, these two patents represent a dual-layer enforcement position: any competitor seeking to replicate both the function and the look of Hyper Ice’s percussive devices faces exposure on two independent legal theories. For companies selling through major retail pharmacy chains — where shelf differentiation is visual as much as functional — the design patent carries particular commercial weight. The fact that neither patent faced any validity challenge in this litigation means their enforceability remains legally uncontested as of the case’s closure.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482B1 and USD0886317S?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing percussive massage devices — particularly those sold through pharmacy retail, big-box, or e-commerce channels — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. Hyper Ice has now demonstrated willingness to file federal litigation against a large-cap retailer. The variable stroke length claim in US11857482B1 is technically specific enough to require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison against your device’s drive mechanism. The design patent USD0886317S warrants visual and dimensional comparison against your product’s industrial design.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11857482B1 against your product’s technical specifications, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that may be relevant to validity. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert your team if Hyper Ice files continuations or new applications in the same family — critical intelligence if this enforcement campaign expands to additional retailers or product variants.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in the percussive massage and wearable recovery device space
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the wearable recovery device IP landscape
A 35-day dismissal with patents intact suggests Hyper Ice is actively patrolling its percussive massage portfolio — and is willing to file fast.
Hyper Ice is using litigation as an active enforcement tool
The willingness to file in federal court against a major retailer like CVS Health, then withdraw before any substantive proceedings, is consistent with a plaintiff using the filing itself as leverage. IP teams monitoring the percussive massage and wearable recovery device space should treat this as a signal that Hyper Ice actively enforces its portfolio beyond cease-and-desist letters.
Design patents are now part of Hyper Ice’s enforcement mix
The inclusion of design patent USD0886317S alongside utility patent US11857482B1 indicates Hyper Ice is pursuing a layered IP strategy. Design patents are increasingly used in consumer device litigation to broaden claim scope and complicate defendant design-arounds. Companies selling percussive massage devices through retail channels should audit both functional and aesthetic elements of their products against Hyper Ice’s registered designs.
Hyper v CVS — key questions answered
Hyper Ice asserted two patents: US11857482B1, a utility patent covering a massage device with variable stroke length (application US17/681367), and USD0886317S, a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a percussive massage device (application US29/716546). Both patents relate to percussive therapy devices sold in the consumer wellness market.
Hyper Ice filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming CVS Health had not yet filed an answer or any responsive pleading. The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations include a private licensing or commercial arrangement, a strategic decision to refile in a different forum, or a recalibration of litigation targets. The 35-day duration suggests the decision was made quickly after filing.
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Hyper Ice from refiling the same patent infringement claims against CVS Health in the future. The patents US11857482B1 and USD0886317S remain fully valid and enforceable. Hyper Ice could refile in federal court at any time, subject only to the applicable statute of limitations for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 286.
No. The case closed before CVS Health filed any responsive pleading, meaning the court issued no ruling on infringement, patent validity, claim construction, or any substantive legal question. Both patents exit the litigation entirely unreviewed by the court, which means their legal status is unchanged from before the suit was filed.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 6:24-cv-00030, assigned to Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The plaintiffs were represented by Benjamin Allen Herbert and Paige Arnette Amstutz of Miller Barondess, LLP and Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP. No defense counsel appears on the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.