Hyper Ice v. Performance Health Systems: Massage Gun Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC asserted two percussive massage gun patents against Performance Health Systems’ Power Plate Mini and Pulse devices in the Central District of California. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice just 125 days after filing — before the defendant had served an answer.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice ends Hyperice’s massage gun patent offensive
In July 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the Central District of California against Performance Health Systems, LLC. The suit targeted two granted U.S. patents — US11938032B2 and US11857482B1 — covering percussive massage and recovery device technology, asserting they were infringed by the Power Plate Mini Massage Gun and the Power Plate Pulse Massage Gun.
On 18 November 2024, Hyperice filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating all claims against Performance Health Systems. The notice was filed as of right because the defendant had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Hyperice is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Performance Health Systems on these patents.
The 125-day lifecycle — from filing to dismissal — is notably brief even for early terminations, suggesting that the parties may have reached a confidential commercial resolution, or that Hyperice conducted a post-filing reassessment of claim strength or enforcement strategy. No settlement terms appear on the public docket. The with-prejudice designation is significant: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this cannot be reversed, meaning the litigation risk to Performance Health Systems on these specific patents is permanently extinguished.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 125 days
125 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without court approval — before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Hyperice exercised this right. The ‘with prejudice’ designation transforms this procedural exit into a final judgment on the merits, permanently closing the door on these specific claims.
Voluntary, pre-answer, with prejudiceHyperice permanently relinquishes these claims against Performance Health Systems
By filing a with-prejudice dismissal, Hyperice has accepted a permanent bar on re-asserting US11938032B2 and US11857482B1 against Performance Health Systems for the same accused products. This is categorically different from a without-prejudice exit. Whether a confidential settlement drove the decision is unknown from the public record, but Hyperice retains the right to enforce these patents against other defendants.
Claims permanently extinguishedPerformance Health Systems escapes liability — permanently — on these two patents
Performance Health Systems never had to serve an answer, engage in discovery, or mount a formal invalidity defense. The with-prejudice ruling provides a strong res judicata shield: Hyperice cannot revive these claims on US11938032B2 or US11857482B1 against these products. From a commercial perspective, the Power Plate Mini and Pulse massage guns are no longer under litigation threat from Hyperice on these patent numbers.
Permanent litigation shieldPercussive massage gun sector: IP enforcement tactics under scrutiny
The rapid with-prejudice exit — before any responsive pleading — suggests either a negotiated resolution or a strategic withdrawal following further diligence. Competitors in the percussive recovery device market should note that Hyperice’s two asserted patents remain active and enforceable against other parties. The outcome signals that enforcement pressure may be used to drive commercial conversations rather than achieve courtroom verdicts.
Patents remain active vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Percussive recovery device company — holder of US11938032B2 and US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Performance Health Systems, LLC | Company | Performance Health Systems, LLC — maker of Power Plate percussive massage gunsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin A. Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryan Paul Sugar | 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yi Bu | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Health Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | JiangIP LLC | Law Firm | Representing Performance Health Systems, LLCSearch 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), confirming that no answer or summary judgment motion had been served — meaning the court exercised no substantive review of the merits. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative term: it converts a procedural exit into a final adjudication, barring Hyperice from re-filing these claims. The absence of any court-imposed conditions or cost orders is consistent with a plaintiff-controlled pre-answer exit, but the with-prejudice election likely reflects negotiated finality rather than a purely unilateral withdrawal.
US11938032B2 & US11857482B1 — percussive massage and recovery device technology
US11938032B2 and US11857482B1 are both granted U.S. utility patents held by Hyperice covering percussive massage and recovery device technology. Filed under application numbers US17/127006 and US17/681367 respectively, these patents sit in the high-growth wearable and handheld recovery device segment. Percussive massage guns deliver rapid, targeted vibration to muscle tissue, and patent protection in this category typically covers motor architecture, attachment head systems, control logic, and ergonomic housing design.
Hyperice — the parent brand behind the Hypervolt product line — is one of the most active IP holders in the percussive therapy category. These two patents represent a strategic enforcement layer around its commercial product family. In a market where device differentiation is increasingly narrow and price competition is intense, granted patents covering core percussive mechanisms give Hyperice significant leverage to challenge new entrants or lower-cost competitors. The asserted infringement of the Power Plate Mini and Pulse devices signals that Hyperice monitors competitor SKUs closely and is willing to litigate to protect market position.
Should you run an FTO against US11938032B2 and US11857482B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing handheld percussive massage guns or vibration therapy devices for the U.S. market should treat these two Hyperice patents as priority FTO targets. The fact that Hyperice filed — and then permanently dismissed — a suit against a named competitor’s commercial SKUs confirms that these patents are being actively monitored and enforced. Product teams launching percussion therapy or recovery gun lines should validate their designs before U.S. market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claim scope of US11938032B2 and US11857482B1 against your device architecture in minutes — surfacing prior art, claim limitations, and design-around opportunities. Eureka’s litigation monitor also tracks Hyperice’s broader enforcement portfolio, so you can identify whether related continuation or divisional patents pose additional risk alongside these two assets.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11938032B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar percussive massage and recovery device patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving percussive therapy and handheld massage device patents in U.S. district courts — including C.D. California — with comparable enforcement and early exit patterns.
What this case signals for the percussive recovery device IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit before any answer is filed is rare enough to demand analysis — especially when two granted patents and two named products are in play.
With-prejudice dismissal is a permanent concession, not just a pause
Teams monitoring Hyperice’s enforcement posture should note: this is not a without-prejudice retreat that could be re-filed. The permanent bar on these claims against Performance Health Systems is a meaningful strategic concession, regardless of whether a confidential deal accompanied it. The patents themselves remain live against the broader market.
Pre-answer resolution compresses discovery and cost exposure for both sides
Neither party incurred discovery costs or claim construction briefing. For defendants in similar disputes, this case is a data point: maintaining strong pre-answer negotiating leverage — without filing a formal invalidity challenge — can yield a permanent resolution in under 125 days.
Hyper v Performance — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a permanent, final termination of the asserted claims. Hyper Ice and Hyperice IP Subco are permanently barred from re-filing the same claims based on US11938032B2 and US11857482B1 against Performance Health Systems for the accused Power Plate products. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
Hyperice asserted two granted U.S. patents: US11938032B2 (application US17/127006) and US11857482B1 (application US17/681367). Both cover percussive massage and recovery device technology. The accused products were the Power Plate Mini Massage Gun and the Power Plate Pulse Massage Gun manufactured and sold by Performance Health Systems, LLC.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Common drivers of a with-prejudice pre-answer exit include: a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, a commercial resolution such as a distribution or co-existence deal, or a post-filing reassessment of claim coverage or damages potential. The with-prejudice designation suggests the parties sought finality, which is more consistent with a negotiated outcome than a unilateral retreat.
Yes. The dismissal only extinguishes Hyperice’s claims against Performance Health Systems for the named products. Both patents remain granted, active, and fully enforceable against any other party. Companies selling competing percussive massage gun products in the U.S. market should not treat this dismissal as reducing Hyperice’s enforcement posture — it may in fact signal an active licensing programme.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-05982). It was a first-instance infringement action. The case was filed on 16 July 2024 and closed on 18 November 2024, lasting 125 days. No judge ruling on the merits was issued — the case closed on the plaintiff’s own dismissal notice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.