Hyperice vs. Kroger: Voluntary Dismissal in Percussion Massager Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Kroger Co. |
| Case Number | 2:24-cv-00063 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Jan 31, 2024 – Mar 15, 2024 44 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed — Without Prejudice |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Multiple Kroger-sold percussion massager products (e.g., Reathlete FOLD, Vybe Premium, WBM Smart Massage Gun) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Prominent wellness technology company best known for its Hypervolt line of percussion massage devices. Co-plaintiff Hyperice IP Subco, LLC consolidates patent ownership for enforcement.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the largest U.S. retail grocery chains, named as defendant for selling accused massager products from third-party manufacturers.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. US11857482B1, covering innovations in percussion massage gun technology. The patent’s claims likely address structural, mechanical, or control-system elements that differentiate professional-grade devices.
- • US11857482B1 — Percussion muscle massage device technology
Developing a new wellness product?
Check if your percussion massager design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, ordering all claims DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was issued.
Legal Significance
Dismissal without prejudice means Hyperice retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Kroger or other parties at a future date. This is not a final adjudication on the merits. Pre-answer dismissals in patent cases frequently signal behind-the-scenes resolution — such as licensing agreements or cease-and-desist compliance — that never appear in the public record. Targeting a retailer like Kroger is also a recognized enforcement tactic that can accelerate commercial resolution.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in the percussion 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 tech patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for massager devices
🔍 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
High Risk Area
Percussion muscle massage devices
1 Patent at Issue
US11857482B1
Design-Around Options
Potentially available for claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals before answer are powerful tools — they reset enforcement without judicial risk and preserve all future claims.
Search related case law →Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for technology patent plaintiffs; local counsel pairing reflects sophisticated venue strategy.
Explore venue insights →Retailer-defendant cases often resolve faster than manufacturer-defendant cases — a tactical consideration for assertion strategy design.
Analyze litigation trends →Monitor US11857482B1 and related Hyperice IP portfolio for future enforcement actions in the percussion therapy space.
Set up patent alerts →Subco IP holding structures merit attention — they signal organized, multi-front licensing/enforcement programs.
Analyze company portfolios →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US11857482B1 (Application No. US17/681367), covering percussion massage device technology.
Plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court dismissed all claims without prejudice, meaning Hyperice may refile in the future.
It signals active enforcement of Hyperice’s IP portfolio against retail sellers of competing massage gun products, with potential implications for retailers, OEMs, and distributors across the category.
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 Case Lookup — 2:24-cv-00063
- USPTO Patent Search — US11857482B1
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
- Eastern District of Texas Local Patent Rules (not directly linkable publicly)
- 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.