Hyper Ice v. Dacorm: $169,868 Judgment in Percussion Massage Device Patent Dispute
Hyper Ice, Inc. secured a court judgment against Dacorm in the Central District of California for infringing US11857482B1, a patent covering massage devices with variable stroke length. The case resolved in 399 days with a damages award of $169,868, plus costs to be determined separately.
Hyper Ice wins default-style judgment over percussive therapy patent
Filed on January 16, 2024, in the Central District of California, this infringement action was brought by Hyper Ice, Inc. — a leading player in the percussive therapy and sports recovery device market — against Dacorm, asserting infringement of US11857482B1. The patent in suit covers a massage device incorporating a variable stroke length mechanism, a design element central to Hyper Ice’s product differentiation strategy in the competitive percussion massage category.
On February 18, 2025, Judge John W. Holcomb entered judgment in favor of Hyper Ice, Inc. and co-plaintiff Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, and against Dacorm in the amount of $169,868. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed,’ which, combined with the judgment entry, suggests the matter may have resolved following a default or unopposed motion rather than a full merits trial. Costs remain to be determined via a separate application.
The 399-day duration from filing to close is consistent with a case where the defendant may not have mounted a substantive defense, as no defendant agents or law firms appear in the public record. The relatively modest damages figure of $169,868 — rather than the potentially much larger sums seen in contested percussive device disputes — suggests the award may reflect a defined period of infringing sales or a calculated royalty base, though the precise methodology is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 399 days
399 days — slightly above the ~350-day median for uncontested district court IP cases
Judgment for Hyper Ice: what the $169,868 award means for both parties
Judgment entered — likely unopposed based on public record
The court entered a formal judgment under Judge Holcomb’s order, awarding $169,868 against Dacorm. The absence of any recorded defendant counsel or agents in the docket is consistent with a default judgment or an uncontested proceeding — meaning the damages figure was not subjected to adversarial challenge. Costs remain open for a subsequent application, which could add further liability.
Judgment — damages awardedHyper Ice secures enforceable money judgment
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC obtained a court-ordered judgment of $169,868, which is immediately enforceable against Dacorm as a matter of civil procedure. The ruling validates US11857482B1 as an enforceable patent against at least one market participant, strengthening Hyper Ice’s position in future enforcement actions against other potential infringers of this variable stroke-length technology.
Enforceability confirmedDacorm faces $169,868 liability with costs still pending
Dacorm now carries an enforceable judgment of $169,868 plus unresolved costs. With no defendant counsel appearing on record, the public record does not indicate whether Dacorm intends to satisfy the judgment, negotiate a resolution, or appeal. The ‘Case Dismissed’ termination basis alongside the judgment entry is an unusual combination that may warrant further monitoring for post-judgment motions.
Judgment debt outstandingPercussion massage IP enforcement precedent strengthened
This judgment signals that Hyper Ice is actively using its patent portfolio to police the percussive therapy device market, particularly for products featuring variable stroke-length mechanisms. Competitors and white-label manufacturers in this category should treat US11857482B1 as an active enforcement risk. The case reinforces that even smaller-scale infringers — not just large device OEMs — are within Hyper Ice’s enforcement scope.
Active enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Percussive therapy device company — holder of US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dacorm | Individual | Dacorm — accused infringer of variable stroke-length massage device patentSearch 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 judgment order directs that Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC ‘shall have JUDGMENT in their FAVOR, and AGAINST Defendant Dacorm, in the amount of $169,868.’ The precise language — a formal decree rather than a settlement approval — indicates a judicially entered damages award, consistent with either a default judgment or a stipulated damages figure. The separate costs application suggests the total financial exposure for Dacorm remains open. The dual-plaintiff structure, naming both the operating company and its IP holding subsidiary, is strategically significant for downstream enforcement.
US11857482B1 — Variable Stroke-Length Percussion Massage Device
US11857482B1, filed under application number US17/681367, protects a massage device incorporating a variable stroke length mechanism — a technical feature that allows the percussive amplitude of the device head to be adjusted, directly affecting therapeutic intensity and user experience. This type of mechanical control over stroke depth is a key performance differentiator in the premium percussion massage device segment, where competitors have competed heavily on motor power, noise, and ergonomics.
For the percussive therapy sector, US11857482B1 represents a design-specific enforcement asset. Its claims, focused on the stroke-length variability mechanism, could potentially read on a broad range of massage gun products from both branded and white-label manufacturers sourcing from contract ODMs — particularly those offering ‘speed’ or ‘amplitude’ modes. Hyperice’s use of an IP holding subsidiary as a co-plaintiff suggests the company has structured its portfolio for aggressive, sustained enforcement.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482B1?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or sells percussion massage devices — particularly those offering adjustable amplitude, multi-speed stroke settings, or variable percussive depth — US11857482B1 should be on your FTO radar. This case demonstrates that Hyper Ice is actively enforcing this patent in federal court, and the absence of a high-profile defendant in this first action suggests the company may be building toward broader enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11857482B1 against your product’s technical specifications, flag prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and identify design-around pathways. Eureka can also surface related Hyperice IP Subco filings and monitor prosecution activity across the percussive therapy patent family — giving your IP and R&D teams the intelligence needed before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar percussion massage device patent cases in federal district courts
Explore comparable percussive therapy and massage device patent infringement actions filed in California federal district courts and related jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the percussive therapy device IP landscape
Hyper Ice’s enforcement of US11857482B1 marks a clear escalation in the percussive massage category — smaller entrants are now in scope.
Variable stroke-length patents are now active enforcement tools
This case confirms that Hyper Ice is not treating US11857482B1 as a defensive asset — it is actively asserting it in federal court. Any competitor marketing a massage device with adjustable or variable stroke length should assess their design-around options before commercial launch.
Absent defendants in IP cases still incur full judgment exposure
Dacorm’s apparent failure to appear or retain counsel did not reduce its liability — it resulted in an uncontested $169,868 judgment. For R&D teams and product managers, this underscores the cost of ignoring infringement notices or assuming a plaintiff will not pursue smaller market players.
Hyper v Dacorm — key questions answered
Judge John W. Holcomb of the Central District of California entered judgment in favor of Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC against Dacorm in the amount of $169,868. Costs were reserved for a subsequent separate application. The case closed on February 18, 2025, approximately 399 days after filing.
Hyper Ice asserted US11857482B1, filed under application number US17/681367. The patent covers a massage device having a variable stroke length — a percussive therapy technology that allows adjustment of the device head’s stroke amplitude, a key performance feature in the percussion massage market.
The court ordered Dacorm to pay $169,868 in damages. The public record does not disclose the precise damages methodology — whether this reflects a reasonable royalty, lost profits, or a calculated period of infringing sales. Costs remain to be determined separately, meaning Dacorm’s total exposure may exceed this figure.
The public record shows no defendant agents or law firms for Dacorm. This is consistent with a default judgment scenario, where the defendant failed to appear or respond to the complaint, resulting in an uncontested proceeding. However, the precise procedural basis for the judgment is not fully specified in the available case data.
Hyperice IP Subco, LLC appears to be an IP holding entity affiliated with Hyper Ice, Inc. Its inclusion as a co-plaintiff alongside the operating company suggests a structured approach to patent ownership and enforcement — a common strategy that separates patent assets into a subsidiary to facilitate licensing, enforcement, and potential monetisation activities independently of the operating business.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.