Hyper Ice v. Musclegun: Percussive Massager Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against Musclegun, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting US11857482B1 over percussive massage gun products. The case ended in voluntary dismissal without prejudice just 125 days after filing — before Musclegun filed any responsive pleading.
Early voluntary exit: Hyperice drops massager gun suit before answer
On January 16, 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (collectively ‘Hyperice’) filed an infringement action in the California Central District Court against Musclegun, LLC. The suit centred on US11857482B1, a patent covering battery-powered percussive massager technology. Hyperice alleged that Musclegun’s Carbon and Go massage gun models infringed claims relevant to Hyperice’s own Hypervolt Go 2, Hypervolt 2, and Hypervolt 2 Pro product lines.
On May 20, 2024 — just 125 days after filing — Hyperice filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice confirms that Musclegun had not filed an answer, motion for summary judgment, or any other responsive pleading before dismissal. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before a defendant files a responsive pleading, making no court order necessary. The case closed with no merits determination and no adjudication of infringement or validity.
The speed of resolution — under four months, before any defendant response — is notable. Pre-answer dismissals of this kind can reflect a range of motivations: settlement discussions concluded privately, a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or with amended claims, or a reassessment of litigation posture. The public record is silent on any agreed terms. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Hyperice retains the right to assert US11857482B1 against Musclegun again in the future, meaning this case does not constitute a final resolution of the underlying IP dispute.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 125 days
125 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Dismissed without prejudice: what this outcome means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order at any point before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Musclegun had not filed any responsive pleading, Hyperice could exit the litigation unilaterally. No judicial finding was made on infringement, validity, or any other substantive issue.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the public record does not disclose final terms
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the claims are not extinguished — Hyperice may refile the same infringement allegations against Musclegun in the future. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar refiling permanently. The Verdict confirms ‘without prejudice,’ but the public record is silent on whether any private settlement, licence, or other agreement accompanied this dismissal. Practitioners should not infer a settlement merely from the timing.
Refiling remains possibleHyperice retains enforcement rights over US11857482B1
Because the dismissal is without prejudice and no validity or enforceability determination was made, US11857482B1 remains intact and enforceable. Hyperice can reassert claims against Musclegun, or pursue infringement actions against other massage gun manufacturers, without this case creating any preclusion or estoppel. The patent’s commercial leverage is undiminished by this outcome.
Patent remains enforceablePercussive massager sector: competitive IP tension persists
The rapid, pre-answer dismissal suggests unresolved commercial tension rather than a definitive resolution. Competitors in the percussive massage device market — particularly those offering products that replicate Hypervolt form factors or performance specs — should treat US11857482B1 as an active enforcement risk. The fact that Hyperice moved quickly to file, then withdrew before discovery, is consistent with ongoing portfolio-level enforcement strategy rather than a one-off action.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Percussive wellness device company — holder of US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Musclegun, LLC | Company | Musclegun, LLC — maker of Carbon and Go massage gun modelsSearch 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 invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms that Musclegun filed no answer or dispositive motion prior to dismissal. This language is legally significant: it confirms the procedural right to dismiss without court involvement and forecloses any argument that the dismissal constituted a two-dismissal bar under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). No substantive findings were made. The ‘without prejudice’ designation means Hyperice’s infringement claims survive and may be reasserted; Musclegun receives no preclusive protection from this termination.
US11857482B1 — battery-powered percussive massager device technology
US11857482B1 covers technology in the battery-powered percussive massager space — the category of handheld, motor-driven devices that deliver rapid percussive strokes for muscle recovery and pain relief. The patent is held through Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, suggesting deliberate structural separation of IP assets from the operating business. Filed under application number US17/681367, this patent is asserted specifically against products in Musclegun’s Carbon and Go model lines, which compete directly with Hyperice’s Hypervolt Go 2, Hypervolt 2, and Hypervolt 2 Pro devices.
The percussive massager category has seen significant commercial growth and corresponding IP competition, with several major brands asserting utility patents over motor configuration, amplitude, ergonomics, and battery management features. US11857482B1’s enforcement against a smaller competitor like Musclegun is consistent with a broader pattern of dominant brand players using patent portfolios to control market access and deter close-substitute products. For any company designing or commercialising percussion therapy devices, this patent represents a meaningful clearance risk that pre-dates any future enforcement action.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482B1?
Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer of battery-powered percussive massage guns — particularly those offering portable, consumer-grade models comparable to the Hypervolt line — should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against US11857482B1 before product launch or commercial scaling. The fact that Hyperice filed suit quickly and retains full enforcement rights post-dismissal means this patent is actively monitored and commercially significant. The absence of a merits ruling provides no safe harbour.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US11857482B1 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related family members or continuation applications that may extend coverage. Eureka’s AI-powered claim analysis accelerates clearance reviews that would otherwise take weeks, allowing product and IP teams to make launch decisions with confidence — not assumptions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar percussive massager and wellness device patent cases
Cases involving percussive massage gun patents litigated in California federal courts, including comparable pre-answer dismissals and infringement actions in the wellness device sector.
What this case signals for the percussive wellness device IP landscape
A fast pre-answer exit rarely means the IP dispute is over. For massager manufacturers, the signals here warrant attention.
Pre-answer dismissals preserve maximum optionality for plaintiffs
Hyperice exited before incurring significant discovery costs and before any claim construction proceedings. This approach allows the patent holder to reassess claim scope, gather additional evidence of infringement, or negotiate privately — then refile with a stronger position if needed. Competitors should not treat this outcome as a green light.
US11857482B1 remains a live enforcement threat for massage gun makers
No invalidity finding, no claim construction ruling, and no consent judgment were entered. The patent survives this litigation entirely unscathed. Any manufacturer of percussive massage guns — particularly those targeting similar portability and power specifications as the Hypervolt line — should conduct a formal FTO review against this patent before scaling commercial activity.
Hyper v Musclegun — key questions answered
A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not extinguish Hyperice’s claims. Hyperice retains the right to refile infringement allegations based on US11857482B1 against Musclegun at any time. No court made any ruling on infringement, validity, or enforceability, so the patent is fully intact and enforceable going forward.
The sole patent asserted was US11857482B1 (application number US17/681367), covering battery-powered percussive massager technology. It was held and asserted through Hyperice IP Subco, LLC alongside operating entity Hyper Ice, Inc. The accused products were Musclegun’s Carbon and Go massage gun models.
The public record does not disclose the reason for early dismissal. Pre-answer voluntary dismissals can reflect private settlement or licensing negotiations, a strategic decision to refile with refined claims or in a different venue, or a reassessment of litigation economics. Musclegun had not filed any responsive pleading, giving Hyperice the procedural right to exit without court approval.
Naming an IP holding entity as co-plaintiff is consistent with a structured patent monetisation strategy. It can facilitate licensing arrangements, separate royalty streams from operating revenue, and insulate core business assets from litigation risk. It also indicates that Hyperice treats its patent portfolio as a discrete commercial asset managed independently from its product business.
No. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and without any merits ruling, US11857482B1 remains fully enforceable. No invalidity finding, no claim construction order, and no estoppel was created by this litigation. Hyperice can assert the patent against Musclegun or any other party in a future action on the same or similar infringement theories.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.