Case Overview

In a notable but brief patent dispute in the Western District of Texas, Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against retail giant Macy’s, Inc. in January 2024, alleging infringement of three patents covering percussive massage devices. The case — docketed as 6:24-cv-00037 — closed just 63 days later when plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

While the case produced no judicial ruling on the merits, its rapid resolution carries meaningful strategic signals for patent holders in the consumer wellness technology space, for retailers navigating third-party product liability, and for IP professionals tracking assertion patterns in the wearable and recovery device markets.

This analysis unpacks the case’s procedural posture, the patents at issue, and the strategic implications of a voluntary early dismissal — one of the most underanalyzed outcomes in patent litigation.

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

Three patents were asserted in this action, using a sophisticated strategy of combining both design and utility patents to protect both the aesthetic and functional aspects of percussive massage devices.

• • USD956,253S — A design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a massage device
• • US11,857,482 B1 — A utility patent directed to a massage device with variable stroke length functionality
• • USD886,317S — A design patent covering percussive massage device aesthetics

The Accused Products

The complaint targeted percussive massage devices sold through Macy’s retail channels. The specific products alleged to infringe were described as a “massage device having variable stroke length” and a “percussive massage device” — product categories directly competitive with Hyperice’s core commercial offerings.

Legal Representation

Hyperice retained Miller Barondess, LLP and Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP, with attorneys Benjamin Allen Herbert and Paige Arnette Amstutz leading plaintiff-side representation. No defendant law firm or agent was recorded in the case docket prior to dismissal.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The case closed before Macy’s filed any answer, motion for summary judgment, or other responsive pleading. This timing is legally significant: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without court order and without prejudice only when the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Hyperice’s filing satisfied precisely those conditions.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was dismissed without prejudice on March 19, 2024, pursuant to Hyperice’s voluntary notice of dismissal. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted or denied, and no substantive judicial ruling on validity or infringement was issued. The dismissal without prejudice preserves Hyperice’s right to refile the same claims against Macy’s — or modified claims against other parties — at a future date.

Verdict Cause Analysis

Because the dismissal occurred before any responsive pleading was filed, no claim construction, invalidity analysis, or infringement determination appears on the record. The case presents no judicial reasoning to analyze in the traditional sense.

Several factors commonly precipitate this type of pre-answer dismissal:

• Settlement or License Agreement: The most probable explanation in patent cases of this nature is a confidential out-of-court resolution.
• Strategic Reassessment: Hyperice may have determined that Macy’s — as a downstream retailer rather than the device manufacturer — was not the optimal litigation target.
• Venue or Jurisdictional Recalibration: Plaintiffs occasionally reassess forum selection after filing, particularly if early case management signals suggest a less favorable trajectory.

Legal Significance

This case generates no binding precedent on patent validity or infringement. However, it reinforces a well-documented litigation pattern: retailers are increasingly named in patent suits as leverage points, even when manufacturers are the primary infringement actors. The Rule 41 dismissal mechanism — clean, efficient, and without prejudice — remains one of the most strategically flexible tools in a patent plaintiff’s procedural arsenal.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The percussive massage and athletic recovery device market has expanded aggressively, attracting both established brands and lower-cost competitors. Hyperice’s assertion of both design and utility patents against retail distribution channels reflects a broader industry-wide trend: IP holders are using litigation not just to stop competitors, but to control distribution channels and enforce market positioning.

For Macy’s and similarly positioned large-format retailers, this case is a reminder that patent exposure extends beyond manufacturers to any entity in the distribution chain. The dismissal without prejudice also signals that Hyperice retains the right to refile — against Macy’s or others — should business or competitive conditions change.