Hyperice vs. Bob And Brad: Percussive Massager Patent Case Transferred to California
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Hyperice, Inc. et al. v. Bob And Brad, LLC |
| Case Number | 0:24-cv-00011 (D. Minn.) / Transferred to CDCA |
| Court | Minnesota District Court (transferred to Central District of California) |
| Duration | Jan 2024 – Apr 2024 104 days |
| Outcome | Case Transferred |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Battery-powered Percussive Massagers (Bob And Brad products) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
California-based performance health technology company, dominant IP holder in recovery tech, known for Hypervolt percussive massagers.
🛡️ Defendant
Consumer wellness brand offering accessible, budget-positioned massage and physical therapy products with a strong direct-to-consumer presence.
Patents at Issue
This case centered on **US Patent No. 11,857,482 B1**, a utility patent covering innovations in battery-powered percussive massager technology. This category includes handheld, battery-operated devices designed to deliver repetitive pressure to muscle tissue for recovery and therapeutic purposes.
- • US11,857,482 B1 — Battery-powered percussive massagers
Developing a percussive massager product?
Check if your design or technology might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Minnesota District Court, upon reviewing the **Stipulated Motion to Transfer** (ECF No. 19), found **good cause** to grant the motion. The case was formally relocated to the **Central District of California**. No damages were assessed, no injunctive relief was granted or denied, and no merits-based findings on infringement or patent validity were rendered at this stage.
Key Legal Issues
The procedural vehicle here — a **stipulated transfer** rather than a contested motion — is legally significant. Both parties agreed to the venue change, suggesting a pragmatic decision to accelerate the case’s migration to a potentially preferred forum. The Central District of California is a historically plaintiff-friendly and IP-experienced jurisdiction, notably Hyperice’s home turf. No claim construction rulings, expert testimony, or invalidity arguments are on record from the Minnesota proceedings; all substantive legal maneuvering will now occur in the CDCA.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in the percussive massager market. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in wellness device patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for percussive massagers
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Newly Asserted Patent
US11,857,482 B1 is active
Percussive Massager IP
High litigation risk area
Early-Stage Resolution
Focus on venue strategy
✅ Key Takeaways
Stipulated venue transfers can serve as strategic tools, aligning litigation in more favorable jurisdictions.
Search related case law →Multi-firm plaintiff coalitions signal high-stakes patent assertions; anticipate aggressive prosecution in preferred forums.
Explore litigation strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved **US Patent No. 11,857,482 B1** (Application No. US17/681,367), a utility patent covering battery-powered percussive massager technology.
The Minnesota District Court granted a **Stipulated Motion to Transfer**, relocating the case to the Central District of California. No merits-based findings were issued.
The CDCA proceedings will produce claim construction rulings on US11,857,482 B1 that could define infringement boundaries for the entire percussive massager industry, affecting both established players and new market entrants.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Federal Court Records — Case 0:24-cv-00011
- Google Patents — US11,857,482 B1
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Central District of California Court
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.