Hyperice vs. Macy’s: Percussive Massage Device Patent Case Dismissed
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Macy’s, Inc. |
| Case Number | 6:24-cv-00037 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Jan 2024 – Mar 2024 63 days |
| Outcome | Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Percussive massage devices (“massage device having variable stroke length”) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Prominent player in recovery technology and wellness device market, known for Hypervolt percussive massage devices.
🛡️ Defendant
Major U.S. retail department store chain, targeted as a distributor of allegedly infringing products.
Patents at Issue
This case involved three patents protecting both functional innovation and distinctive commercial aesthetic of percussive massage devices. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
- • US D956,253S — A design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a massage device
- • US 11,857,482B1 — A utility patent directed to a massage device having a variable stroke length
- • US D886,317S — A design patent covering ornamental design elements of a percussive massage device
Designing a percussive massage device?
Check if your design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
Hyperice filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was self-executing — requiring no judicial approval — because Macy’s had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief ordered. The specific terms driving the dismissal were not disclosed.
Key Legal Issues
Because the case terminated pre-answer, no merits-based legal rulings were issued. This case highlights common enforcement strategies in consumer product markets: targeting retailers for faster commercial relief and using Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals to preserve future claims against manufacturers. The combination of design and utility patents signals a layered IP enforcement strategy.
Strategic Takeaways
For Patent Holders: Combining design and utility patents creates multi-vector infringement exposure. Filing against retailers can accelerate commercial outcomes when manufacturer defendants are less accessible. Preserving claims via Rule 41 dismissal maintains enforcement flexibility.
For Accused Infringers (Retailers): Retail defendants should quickly assess if manufacturers will indemnify. Early settlement evaluation is critical given the asymmetric litigation cost burden.
For R&D Teams: Freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses for percussive massage devices must account for both functional claims (variable stroke length mechanisms) and ornamental design claim scope.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in percussive massage device design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the 3 related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in wellness tech patents
- Understand enforcement strategies in consumer product markets
🔍 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
Percussive massage devices with variable stroke length
3 Patents at Issue
Design & Utility Patents
Early FTO is Key
Before product launch
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals without prejudice are powerful tools for preserving claims after achieving commercial enforcement objectives.
Search related case law →Retailer-targeting strategies can yield faster resolution than manufacturer-direct suits.
Explore enforcement tactics →Combining design and utility patents strengthens assertion leverage significantly.
Learn about portfolio strategy →Frequently Asked Questions
Three patents: design patents USD956,253S and USD886,317S, and utility patent US11,857,482B1, covering percussive massage devices with variable stroke length technology.
Hyperice voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Macy’s filed any responsive pleading. The dismissal was without prejudice, preserving Hyperice’s right to refile.
It signals active enforcement of Hyperice’s IP portfolio and highlights retailer exposure risk when stocking competing massage devices without manufacturer IP indemnification.
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: 6:24-cv-00037
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Full-Text Database
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
- Google Patents: US D956,253S
- Google Patents: US 11,857,482B1
- Google Patents: US D886,317S
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.