Hyperice v. Toloco: Massage Gun Patent Suit Consolidated Into Multi-Case Docket
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Toloco, Inc. in the Central District of California, asserting US11857482B1 over competing massage guns. After 157 days, the court administratively closed this case by consolidating it with five related Hyperice actions ahead of a joint Markman hearing.
Hyperice consolidates five patent suits against massage gun rivals
On January 16, 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP subsidiary Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed suit against Toloco, Inc. in the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-00099), asserting infringement of US11857482B1. The products at issue span Hyperice’s own Hypervolt 2, Hypervolt 2 Pro, and Hypervolt Go 2 lines alongside Toloco’s competing massage guns — specifically the EM26, X8, and TO-M63 models — suggesting the dispute centers on core device architecture rather than peripheral features.
The case did not reach a merits ruling. On June 21, 2024, Judge John W. Holcomb ordered this action administratively closed and consolidated with four other related Hyperice infringement cases into lead docket 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing. Consolidation is a procedural mechanism — it does not extinguish any party’s claims or defenses, and Toloco remains an active defendant in the consolidated proceeding.
The 157-day period from filing to administrative closure is consistent with a court moving efficiently to manage a coordinated multi-defendant campaign. The consolidation order sets a shared claim construction schedule and leaves open the possibility of severance on good cause. What remains unresolved from the public record of this individual docket is any indication of settlement talks, claim scope disputes, or Toloco’s invalidity posture — all of which will surface in the lead case filings.
Filing to Case Consolidated in 157 days
157-day active window before administrative closure via consolidation order
Case consolidated: what the court’s order means for both parties
Consolidation is procedural — claims remain fully live
An administrative consolidation order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) merges related cases for pretrial efficiency but does not dismiss or adjudicate any claim. Toloco’s liability exposure under US11857482B1 is unchanged. All substantive activity — including Markman briefing, discovery, and any dispositive motions — will proceed in lead docket 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. The court retains the option to sever cases before trial.
No merits ruling yetHyperice gains coordinated claim construction across all defendants
Consolidation typically benefits the plaintiff in a multi-defendant campaign by allowing a single, plaintiff-favoured claim construction to bind all defendants simultaneously. Hyperice can now present a unified claim construction position for US11857482B1 across five cases, reducing the risk of inconsistent Markman rulings. This is consistent with a structured enforcement strategy targeting the broader massage gun market.
Coordinated enforcement advantageToloco faces joint Markman but retains severance right
For Toloco, consolidation means its claim construction arguments will be heard alongside those of co-defendants, which may dilute individual positioning but also spreads litigation costs. The court’s explicit preservation of severance rights means Toloco could move to separate its case if its accused products raise materially distinct infringement issues. Toloco’s defence team — drawn from Dentons US LLP, Glacier Law LLP, and SHM Law Firm — suggests a well-resourced response.
Severance option preservedPercussive therapy IP enforcement is intensifying
The consolidation of five concurrent Hyperice actions signals a coordinated IP enforcement campaign in the consumer percussive therapy device space. Competitors selling massage guns in the US market — particularly those sourcing hardware from manufacturers also supplying Toloco-type products — should treat US11857482B1 as an active enforcement risk. The forthcoming Markman ruling in the lead case will set claim scope that affects all current and prospective defendants.
Active enforcement campaignFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Percussive therapy device maker — holder of US11857482B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Toloco, Inc. | Company | Consumer massage gun seller; accused products include EM26, X8, and TO-M63 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin R. Greenleaf | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark L. Hogge | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Bruce Janda | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas H. Jackson | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Qianwu Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tianyu Ju | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Xionghui Murong | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dentons US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Toloco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | SHM Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Toloco, 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 procedural rather than dispositive — it reflects judicial case management efficiency, not a ruling on the merits of Hyperice’s infringement claims or Toloco’s defences. The order’s explicit direction that any party may move to sever for good cause preserves flexibility, but in practice courts rarely sever consolidated cases absent fundamentally distinct factual records. The operative consequence is that US11857482B1’s claim construction will be determined once, binding all five defendants simultaneously.
US11857482B1 — percussive massage gun device technology
US11857482B1, filed under application number US17/681367, is a utility patent held by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC covering percussive massage gun device technology. The patent issued with B1 status, indicating it issued without any post-grant amendment — suggesting the claims as granted reflect the applicant’s original scope. Percussive therapy devices occupy a technically dense space involving motor drive mechanisms, amplitude control, attachment interfaces, and device housing geometry, and claim scope in this domain can extend to a wide range of competing hardware implementations.
Hyperice’s decision to assert this patent across five simultaneous cases — targeting products including Toloco’s EM26, X8, and TO-M63 alongside its own Hypervolt product line as the comparison baseline — is consistent with a strategy to establish market exclusivity in the premium and mid-market percussive therapy segment. For competitors, the critical risk is that a broad Markman construction could capture any device sharing key structural or functional features with the Hypervolt architecture. Companies planning product launches or US market entry in this category should prioritise freedom-to-operate clearance against US11857482B1 before the claim construction ruling crystallises the risk landscape.
Should your team run an FTO against US11857482B1?
Any company designing, importing, or selling percussive massage guns for the US market should treat US11857482B1 as a live enforcement risk. Hyperice has already filed five concurrent actions, and the consolidation order accelerates the timeline to a binding claim construction ruling. Product teams developing next-generation massage gun hardware — particularly those working on motor architecture, stroke amplitude mechanisms, or attachment head systems — should conduct claim-by-claim mapping against this patent before finalising designs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can run automated claim mapping of US11857482B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag forward citations that reveal how broadly courts and examiners have interpreted the claim language. With the Markman hearing in the lead case approaching, there is a narrowing window in which design-around options remain commercially viable before claim scope is judicially fixed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11857482B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related percussive therapy and consumer device patent cases
Cases involving massage gun and percussive therapy device patents in the Central District of California, including the four other Hyperice consolidated actions.
What this consolidation signals for percussive therapy device IP
Hyperice’s five-case filing pattern suggests systematic enforcement of US11857482B1 across the massage gun market — not opportunistic litigation.
The lead Markman ruling will define exposure for the entire market
Claim construction in 8:24-cv-00098 will bind all five consolidated defendants, including Toloco. Any company selling massage guns in the US that has not yet run a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11857482B1 should treat that ruling date as a hard deadline for completing one.
Multiple defendants in one docket increases settlement pressure on each
Consolidation concentrates Hyperice’s litigation costs while each defendant still bears individual defence costs. This asymmetry typically accelerates settlement discussions among smaller defendants. Toloco’s retention of three law firms, however, suggests it may be positioned to contest the case on the merits rather than settle early.
Hyper v Toloco — key questions answered
The consolidation order administratively closed case 8:24-cv-00099 and merged it into lead docket 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing. Toloco’s liability exposure under US11857482B1 is unchanged — consolidation is procedural and does not dismiss or adjudicate any claim. Toloco remains an active defendant and retains the right to move for severance.
Hyperice asserts US11857482B1, which issued from application US17/681367 and covers percussive massage gun device technology. The accused Toloco products are the EM26, X8, and TO-M63 massage guns. Hyperice’s own Hypervolt 2, Hypervolt 2 Pro, and Hypervolt Go 2 are identified as reference products, suggesting the infringement theory tracks structural or functional similarities to those devices.
The court consolidated six cases in total: the lead docket 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, plus 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. All pretrial activity through the Markman hearing will occur in the lead docket.
Yes. Because this case has been consolidated into lead docket 8:24-cv-00098 for pretrial purposes including the Markman hearing, the claim construction order issued in that proceeding will apply to all consolidated defendants, including Toloco. This means Toloco’s infringement and invalidity positions will be shaped by a single claim construction ruling shared across all five defendant cases.
Yes. The court’s consolidation order expressly states that any party may move to sever the cases for good cause shown. In practice, successful severance motions typically require a showing that the consolidated treatment creates material prejudice or that the factual record is sufficiently distinct to warrant separate proceedings. Toloco’s three-firm defence team may evaluate this option if its accused products raise distinct infringement or invalidity issues.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.