Hyperice v. Macy’s: Theragun & TheraFace Patent Suit Consolidated in C.D. Cal.
Hyperice, Inc. and its IP subsidiary sued Macy’s, Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of US11857482B1, a patent covering percussive therapy and LED facial recovery devices including the Theragun and TheraFace product lines. The case was administratively closed after just 119 days when the court consolidated it into a broader lead action involving at least five related Hyperice infringement suits.
Hyperice’s multi-front retail enforcement campaign reaches Macy’s
On February 23, 2024, Hyperice, Inc. and its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against Macy’s, Inc. in the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-00391), asserting infringement of US11857482B1. The patent-in-suit relates to percussive therapy and LED-based facial recovery technology embodied in Hyperice’s commercially prominent Theragun and TheraFace product lines, including the Theragun Elite, PRO, Mini, Prime, Relief, Sense, and the TheraFace PRO and LED devices.
The case was resolved procedurally rather than on the merits. On June 21, 2024 — 119 days after filing — Judge John W. Holcomb ordered that Case No. 8:24-cv-00391 be administratively closed and consolidated with lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing. Consolidation does not extinguish the underlying claims; it folds this action into a coordinated proceeding alongside at least four other related Hyperice cases, streamlining claim construction and pretrial management.
The rapid consolidation — before any scheduling order, claim construction briefing, or substantive motion practice — suggests Hyperice filed parallel suits against multiple retailers simultaneously, a strategy consistent with broad retail enforcement campaigns. The public record does not reveal whether Macy’s disputes infringement on the merits, has separately engaged in licensing discussions, or intends to seek severance. All substantive litigation activity will now proceed under the lead case docket.
Filing to Case Consolidated in 119 days
119 days — administratively closed at consolidation order, before claim construction
Administrative closure via consolidation: what it means for both parties
Case consolidation is not dismissal — litigation continues
When a district court consolidates cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the constituent cases are typically closed administratively on the docket but their claims survive intact under the lead case. Here, Case No. 8:24-cv-00391 was folded into 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. Macy’s remains a named defendant; no claims have been dismissed and no judgment has been entered. The consolidation covers pretrial proceedings through the Markman hearing, after which cases may proceed separately.
Claims preserved under lead caseHyperice retains all claims against Macy’s
Consolidation is broadly favourable for a plaintiff running a multi-defendant enforcement campaign. Hyperice benefits from a single claim construction ruling that will apply across all consolidated defendants, reducing litigation cost and the risk of inconsistent Markman outcomes. A win on claim construction in the lead case would simultaneously advance the Macy’s action without the need to relitigate the same terms in a separate proceeding.
Unified claim construction benefitMacy’s now litigates alongside multiple co-defendants
Consolidation places Macy’s in a coordinated pretrial environment with other defendants across at least five related cases. This may dilute Macy’s individual influence over claim construction strategy, but also creates opportunities to share defence costs and coordinate invalidity arguments. The court preserved each party’s right to seek severance for good cause, leaving Macy’s the option to pursue an independent track if its position differs materially from co-defendants.
Severance option retainedRetail channel IP exposure for recovery device brands
This consolidation pattern — simultaneous suits against major retailers selling a competitor’s products — is consistent with a strategy targeting the distribution chain rather than (or in addition to) the manufacturer. Retailers carrying percussive therapy or LED wellness devices should note that US11857482B1 is now being actively enforced across multiple California federal cases. Freedom-to-operate analysis covering this patent is increasingly relevant for any retailer in the recovery technology segment.
Retail FTO risk: percussive therapyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyperice, Inc. | Company | Recovery technology brand and IP subsidiary — holder of US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Macy’s, Inc. | Company | Macy’s, Inc. — major U.S. department store retailer allegedly selling infringing Hyperice productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin A. Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence Robert LaPorte | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Barondess, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer H. Hamilton | Attorney | Counsel for Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle Bradford Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark C. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah L. Boone | Attorney | Counsel for Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Avyno Law PC | Law Firm | Representing Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Renner Otto | Law Firm | Representing Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s consolidation order is purely procedural — no infringement finding, validity ruling, or damages assessment was made. The order’s direction to administratively close Case No. 8:24-cv-00391 reflects docket management, not a disposition on the merits. Substantively, the ruling confirms that US11857482B1 claim construction will be resolved once for all consolidated defendants, making the forthcoming Markman hearing in the lead case the most consequential near-term event for all parties’ risk assessment.
US11857482B1 — Percussive therapy and LED facial recovery device technology
US11857482B1 is a granted U.S. patent (application number US17/681367) asserted by Hyperice against the full range of its commercially sold Theragun and TheraFace product lines. The patent covers technology at the intersection of percussive massage therapy — the mechanical percussion mechanism underlying the Theragun family — and LED-based facial treatment as embodied in the TheraFace devices. As a granted patent with a B1 designation, it issued without any reissue or reexamination amendment, suggesting the claims reflect the original prosecution scope.
Strategically, US11857482B1 represents Hyperice’s effort to ring-fence its core consumer recovery technology from retail competitors and potentially from manufacturers supplying similar devices to those retailers. The patent is being enforced across at least five coordinated cases in the Central District of California, indicating Hyperice views it as a commercially critical asset. For competitors developing percussive therapy devices, handheld massage guns, or LED facial tools, and for retailers that carry such products, this patent’s claim construction outcome carries significant sector-wide implications.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing percussive therapy devices or LED facial recovery tools should treat US11857482B1 as an active enforcement risk. Hyperice has demonstrated willingness to pursue retailers directly — not just manufacturers — meaning that stocking Theragun-competitive products without a clearance opinion may expose a retailer to a suit in the Central District of California. R&D teams developing competing devices should audit their product architecture against this patent’s claims before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11857482B1’s claim language against your product specifications, identify prior art that may narrow enforceability, and surface related patents in Hyperice’s portfolio that could present additional risk vectors. With claim construction proceedings underway in the lead consolidated case, running an FTO now — before the Markman order issues — provides the most strategic value for product and legal teams.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related percussive therapy and wellness device patent cases in C.D. Cal.
Cases involving percussive therapy, LED wellness devices, and retail channel patent enforcement in the Central District of California — including Hyperice’s consolidated lead action.
What Hyperice v. Macy’s signals for the recovery technology IP landscape
A coordinated multi-retailer enforcement campaign around a single patent suggests Hyperice is actively policing its commercial channel — with implications beyond this case.
Multi-retailer enforcement is a deliberate IP strategy, not a one-off
The consolidation order references at least five related Hyperice cases filed in the same court around the same period. Filing simultaneously against multiple retailers — rather than the product manufacturer — typically signals that the patent holder believes retail distribution of infringing products creates independent liability. Companies in the recovery technology sector should monitor the lead case docket closely.
Markman outcome in lead case will bind all consolidated defendants
Because consolidation covers pretrial proceedings through the claim construction hearing, the judge’s interpretation of US11857482B1’s key claim terms will govern Macy’s exposure and all other consolidated defendants simultaneously. Competitors and retailers should watch for the Markman order in Case No. 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM as a key inflection point for the patent’s enforceability scope.
Hyperice v Macy’s — key questions answered
Administrative closure in this context means Case No. 8:24-cv-00391 has been folded into lead consolidated case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for pretrial purposes. The claims against Macy’s are not dismissed — they remain live and will be litigated through the Markman hearing under the lead case docket. Administrative closure is a docket management tool, not a merits disposition.
Hyperice asserts US11857482B1 (application US17/681367), a granted U.S. patent covering percussive therapy and LED facial recovery device technology. The accused products include the Theragun Elite, PRO, Mini, Prime, Relief, Sense, and the TheraFace PRO and TheraFace LED — Hyperice’s core consumer recovery device portfolio.
The June 2024 consolidation order identifies five cases consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM: Case Nos. 2:24-cv-03212, 8:24-cv-00099, 8:24-cv-00410, 8:24-cv-00391, and 8:24-cv-00390 — all before Judge John W. Holcomb in the Central District of California. This suggests a coordinated multi-defendant enforcement campaign by Hyperice.
Yes. The consolidation order expressly states that any party may move to sever the cases for good cause shown. If Macy’s defences or factual circumstances diverge materially from co-defendants — such as a distinct accused product configuration or a separate supplier indemnity arrangement — it may seek a separate trial track, though severance motions face a high good-cause threshold.
The next major milestone is the Markman claim construction hearing in lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. The court set a claim construction schedule at the hearing that prompted consolidation. The Markman ruling will determine the scope of US11857482B1’s key claim terms and will govern all consolidated defendants, including Macy’s. A separate trial scheduling order will be issued after claim construction is complete.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.