Hyper Ice v. Home Depot: Percussion Massager Patents Stayed After 135 Days
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC sued Home Depot in the Western District of Texas asserting design patent USD0956253S and utility patent US11857482B1 over the Hypervolt 2 percussion massager line, including products sold under the Sharper Image Powerboost brand. The case was stayed and administratively closed just 135 days after filing, pending final resolution of three parallel infringement actions in California and Michigan.
Filing to Case Stayed in 135 days
135 days from filing to administrative closure — well below median federal patent case duration
Case stayed: what the administrative closure means for both parties
A stay is not a dismissal — the case is preserved
An administrative stay closes the docket for case management purposes but does not terminate the litigation or resolve any claims on the merits. The Court granted the joint motion finding good cause, tying this case to the outcomes of three parallel actions in the Central District of California and Eastern District of Michigan. Either party may move to lift the stay for good cause, meaning the dispute remains live.
No merits adjudicationHyper Ice preserves its Texas claims while concentrating resources
By jointly agreeing to the stay, Hyper Ice avoids litigating the same patents on multiple simultaneous fronts. The California and Michigan cases likely involve the same or closely related accused products, and outcomes there — particularly any claim construction rulings or invalidity findings — will inform or constrain this Texas action. Hyper Ice retains full ability to revive the Home Depot case once those proceedings conclude.
Claims preservedHome Depot gains breathing room with no immediate liability exposure
Home Depot, as a retailer rather than a manufacturer, benefits significantly from deferring litigation pending supplier-level disputes. If the parallel cases against Therabody, MerchSource, or FKA Distributing result in findings of non-infringement or invalidity, Home Depot can use those outcomes to strengthen its position. The stay halts discovery costs and preserves indemnification leverage over its product suppliers.
Liability deferredParallel proceedings signal a coordinated enforcement strategy
Filing simultaneous actions against a retailer and multiple manufacturers or distributors is consistent with a broad market-clearing enforcement campaign. The stay structure suggests Hyper Ice views the manufacturer-level cases as the primary battleground. Retailers and distributors in the percussion massager space should monitor the California and Michigan proceedings closely, as outcomes there will likely set the IP landscape for the broader category.
Sector-wide enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Home Depot, Inc. | Company | Search 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Barondess, 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 Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brett Aaron Mangrum | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William D. Ellerman | Attorney | Counsel for Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Home Depot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order grants a joint stay rather than resolving any infringement or validity question. The stay is conditioned on the conclusion — whether by dismissal or final judgment — of three related cases in the Central District of California and Eastern District of Michigan. This structure reflects a common judicial efficiency approach in coordinated patent campaigns: the Western District of Texas defers to proceedings likely to produce dispositive claim construction or validity rulings. Neither party conceded any position on the merits, and the stay is explicitly without prejudice to either party moving to lift it.
USD0956253S & US11857482B1 — Hypervolt 2 Percussion Massager Patents
USD0956253S is a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of the Hypervolt 2 percussion massager, filed under application US29/744890. Design patents protect the distinctive visual characteristics of a product and are infringed by any device that is substantially similar in the eyes of an ordinary observer. US11857482B1 is a utility patent filed under application US17/681367, protecting the functional aspects of Hyperice’s percussive therapy device architecture. Together, these two patents provide both aesthetic and functional IP coverage over the Hypervolt 2 product line.
The Hypervolt 2 series occupies a premium segment of the rapidly growing percussive therapy and recovery technology market. Asserting both design and utility patents against a major retail channel partner like Home Depot — alongside simultaneous actions against device manufacturers and distributors — suggests Hyper Ice is pursuing a comprehensive market-protection strategy. Competitors and OEM suppliers developing percussion massagers should treat these patents as high-priority FTO targets, particularly given the inclusion of a private-label product (Sharper Image Powerboost) in the accused product list.
Should you run an FTO against USD0956253S and US11857482B1?
Any company developing, sourcing, distributing, or retailing percussion massagers — including private-label, white-label, or OEM products — should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents. The accused product list in this case includes not only direct Hyperice competitors but also a branded retail product (Sharper Image Powerboost), demonstrating that Hyper Ice is willing to pursue downstream commercial channels. Design patent risk is particularly acute for devices with similar form factors, ergonomic grip profiles, or head attachment mechanisms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11857482B1 against your device’s technical specification and flag design-around opportunities with respect to USD0956253S’s ornamental features. Eureka also enables monitoring of the parallel California and Michigan proceedings, so your team receives real-time alerts when rulings emerge that affect the enforceability or claim scope of these patents — essential for any product or procurement decision in the percussion massager category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0956253S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar percussion massager and recovery device patent cases
Browse related patent infringement cases involving percussive therapy devices and consumer health hardware litigated in Texas federal courts and beyond.
What this case signals for the percussion massager IP landscape
Hyper Ice’s coordinated multi-district filing strategy signals aggressive patent enforcement across the recovery technology sector.
Retailer defendants face stay-and-wait dynamics in multi-front patent campaigns
When a patent holder files against both manufacturers and retailers simultaneously, retailers like Home Depot are often positioned as secondary targets. Agreeing to a stay preserves docket resources but means liability exposure depends entirely on outcomes in upstream supplier litigation. Retailers should assess indemnification clauses with their product suppliers immediately upon receiving infringement notice.
Design plus utility patent pairing strengthens enforcement leverage
Asserting both a design patent (USD0956253S) covering product appearance and a utility patent (US11857482B1) covering functional features creates layered infringement exposure. A defendant may design around one but remain exposed on the other. This dual-patent approach is increasingly common in consumer hardware enforcement and raises the cost of any clearance or design-around strategy.
Hyper v Home — key questions answered
As of the closure date of May 30, 2024, the case is administratively closed and stayed. The stay was jointly requested by all parties and granted by Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The case remains pending — no merits ruling has been issued — and will be revived upon final disposition of related cases in the Central District of California and Eastern District of Michigan.
Hyper Ice asserted two patents: design patent USD0956253S (application US29/744890), covering the ornamental design of the Hypervolt 2, and utility patent US11857482B1 (application US17/681367), covering functional aspects of the percussive therapy device. The accused products include the Hypervolt 2, Hypervolt 2 Pro, Hypervolt Go 2, and the Sharper Image Powerboost Deep Tissue Percussion Massager.
The parties filed a joint motion for a stay, which the Court granted upon finding good cause. The stay is conditioned on resolution — by dismissal or final judgment — of three parallel infringement actions: Hyper Ice v. Therabody (C.D. Cal.), Hyper Ice v. MerchSource (C.D. Cal.), and Hyper Ice v. FKA Distributing (E.D. Mich.). The structure suggests judicial efficiency considerations and a coordinated enforcement strategy by Hyper Ice.
No. Administrative closure is a docket management tool, not a dismissal. The infringement claims remain active and preserved. Either party may move to lift the stay for good cause at any time. The case will formally resume once the specified parallel proceedings in California and Michigan reach final disposition.
Three cases must reach final disposition before the Texas stay can be lifted: Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc. (Case No. 8:24-cv-00390, C.D. Cal.), Hyper Ice, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC (Case No. 8:24-cv-00410, C.D. Cal.), and Hyper Ice, Inc. v. FKA Distributing Co., LLC (Case No. 2:24-cv-10115, E.D. Mich.). The Texas stay lifts upon the latter of a dismissal or final judgment in these three actions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.