LPI, Inc. v. Reboot Labs (Plunge): Cold Plunge Spa Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
LPI, Inc. filed suit against Reboot Labs, LLC — the company behind the 'Plunge' cold-water immersion brand — in the Central District of California, asserting US7712161B2, a patent covering a combination spa system with water chilling assembly. The case resolved in 290 days via a stipulated dismissal without prejudice tied to a confidential settlement agreement.
Cold-Plunge IP Clash: LPI Takes Aim at Plunge's Spa Chilling System
On 28 October 2022, LPI, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Reboot Labs, LLC, operating under the consumer brand 'Plunge,' in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:22-cv-07888). The asserted patent, US7712161B2, covers a combination spa system with water chilling assembly — a technology directly relevant to the fast-growing cold-water immersion and recovery hardware market in which Plunge has established significant commercial presence.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order states that LPI and Reboot Labs stipulated to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice pursuant to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement, effected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The specific terms of that settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case closed on 14 August 2023, approximately 290 days after filing — a comparatively swift resolution for a patent infringement action in the Central District of California. The speed suggests the parties reached commercial alignment before substantive claim construction or merits litigation concluded. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and the settlement terms are confidential, what obligations — if any — each party assumed remains unknown from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 290 days
290 days — resolved well under the typical 2–3 year patent trial lifecycle in C.D. Cal.
US7712161B2 — Combination Spa System with Water Chilling Assembly
If your company designs, manufactures, or sells cold-plunge tubs, hydrotherapy tanks, or any combination spa product with an integrated water chilling assembly, US7712161B2 is a patent you cannot ignore. LPI has demonstrated it will enforce this patent in federal court. Because the case settled without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, the patent's claims are untested — meaning the full scope of exclusionary rights remains in force. Hardware brands, OEM suppliers, and retailers in the cold-water wellness category are all potentially within its reach.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records a mutual agreement to end the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), expressly tied to a confidential settlement agreement. Because no claim construction, summary judgment, or trial ruling preceded this dismissal, the verdict carries no legal weight on the merits of infringement or validity of US7712161B2. Both parties exit with their legal positions fully preserved.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — what it means
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a voluntary dismissal filed by stipulation of all parties. When entered without prejudice, it extinguishes the current action but does not bar LPI from refiling claims on the same patent against Reboot Labs in the future. The court enters no judgment on the merits; the dismissal is self-executing upon filing of the stipulation.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the refiling door stays open for LPI
A without-prejudice dismissal preserves LPI's right to refile infringement claims based on US7712161B2. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would function as a final judgment and bar re-litigation. Whether the confidential settlement contains contractual provisions that effectively limit future claims is not disclosed in the available public record.
Refiling right preservedPlunge exits without a court finding of infringement or invalidity
Reboot Labs obtains no judicial ruling on whether its cold-plunge products infringe US7712161B2, nor any finding of patent invalidity. The absence of a merits ruling means the patent's enforceability against Plunge or third parties is unchanged by this proceeding. Any commercial resolution is governed solely by the confidential settlement, the terms of which are not in the public record.
No invalidity ruling securedUS7712161B2 remains enforceable — sector competitors should take note
Because the case ended without a merits ruling, US7712161B2 emerges from this litigation with its enforceability intact. Other manufacturers in the cold-water immersion and hydrotherapy equipment space — whose products may incorporate water chilling assemblies — face the same patent risk that prompted this suit. Companies commercialising similar spa or cold-plunge hardware should assess their FTO position relative to this patent.
Patent remains live threatFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LPI, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Reboot Labs, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob G. Horton | Attorney | Counsel for LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph S. Leventhal | Attorney | Counsel for LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathaniel L. Dilger | Attorney | Counsel for LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas R. Transier | Attorney | Counsel for LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter R. Afrasiabi | Attorney | Counsel for LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Blanchard Horton PLLC | Law Firm | Representing LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | Law Firm | Representing LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | One LLP | Law Firm | Representing LPI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. Joseph Trojan | Attorney | Counsel for Reboot Labs, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William P. Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Reboot Labs, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Amin Talati Wasserman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Reboot Labs, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Trojan Law Offices | Law Firm | Representing Reboot Labs, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the cold-plunge and spa chilling IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence for hardware teams and IP strategists tracking innovation in water chilling, hydrotherapy, and immersion spa systems — informed by the LPI v. Reboot Labs action.
LPI's IP footprint in spa and water chilling systems
LPI's enforcement of US7712161B2 against a major consumer brand suggests active portfolio management. Investigating whether LPI holds continuation patents, divisional applications, or additional filings in the hydrotherapy and aquatic thermal management space can reveal the full boundary of their exclusionary position — and where adjacent white space may exist for competitors.
Active enforcement portfolioFiling trends in cold-water immersion and chilling hardware
The consumer cold-plunge market has expanded rapidly, and patent filings in combination spa systems with active thermal management are likely following. Mapping filing trends from 2018–2024 in this space — including utility and design patents on water chilling assemblies, tub construction, and temperature control systems — reveals which players are building IP moats as the category matures.
Growing IP activityReboot Labs' patent position in the cold-plunge category
As a fast-growing consumer hardware brand, Reboot Labs (Plunge) may be building its own defensive patent portfolio in cold-water immersion technology. Analysing any Plunge-associated filings in thermal management, tub design, or water circulation systems signals how the company is positioning itself against future IP challenges — and whether it is pursuing offensive or purely defensive IP strategy.
Defensive IP watchAdjacent innovation space around water chilling spa systems
Beyond the core claims of US7712161B2, adjacent technical areas — such as smart temperature control interfaces, modular chilling units, UV or filtration integration, and portable cold-plunge systems — may represent lower-encumbrance innovation space. R&D teams can use patent landscape tools to identify claim gaps where novel design-arounds or new product architectures may be protectable.
Design-around opportunitiesSimilar patent cases: spa systems and water chilling technology in U.S. courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving hydrotherapy, spa systems, and water chilling technology litigated in California federal courts.
What this case signals for the cold-plunge and spa systems IP landscape
A fast-growing consumer wellness hardware market is now visibly on the radar of patent holders. US7712161B2 survived this action unscathed.
Cold-plunge hardware is entering a patent enforcement phase
LPI's willingness to file in C.D. Cal. against a well-funded consumer brand signals that spa and water chilling IP is being actively monitored and enforced. Companies entering or scaling in the cold-water immersion market should treat patent landscape analysis as a pre-launch requirement, not an afterthought.
A without-prejudice exit keeps pressure on Reboot Labs and the wider sector
Without a with-prejudice bar or an invalidity ruling, LPI retains full optionality on US7712161B2. Competitors watching this case cannot draw comfort from the outcome — no claim was invalidated, no non-infringement finding was entered. The patent's scope remains untested by any court ruling.
LPI v Reboot — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 14 August 2023. The parties filed a stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stating that the entire action was dismissed pursuant to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. No merits ruling on infringement or validity of US7712161B2 was issued.
LPI asserted US7712161B2, filed under application number US11/401752. The patent covers a combination spa system with water chilling assembly — technology directly applicable to cold-plunge tubs and immersion recovery hardware of the type marketed by Reboot Labs under the 'Plunge' brand.
A without-prejudice dismissal means LPI retains the right to refile infringement claims based on US7712161B2 against Reboot Labs or any other party in the future. No invalidity finding was entered, so the patent's claims remain fully enforceable. Other cold-plunge hardware manufacturers face the same unresolved patent risk as before this action was filed.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:22-cv-07888). It was filed on 28 October 2022 and closed on 14 August 2023, lasting 290 days — a comparatively swift resolution for a patent infringement action in that court.
No. The stipulation expressly states that the dismissal was made pursuant to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available public record. Whether the settlement includes a licence, a covenant not to sue, or any other commercial arrangement between the parties is unknown.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.