Shenzhen Kelaisiman v. Hyper Ice: Massage Gun Patents Stayed for USPTO PGR
Seven Chinese manufacturers filed a joint infringement action against Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting four U.S. patents covering massage gun and smart goggle technology. After 387 days, the court severed and stayed the case pending resolution of two Post-Grant Reviews before the USPTO — a high-stakes procedural pause that binds plaintiffs to statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2).
Patent war over massage guns paused by USPTO post-grant review
Seven Chinese consumer health technology companies — led by Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. — filed suit on July 3, 2024 against California-based Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding subsidiary Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-01472). The plaintiffs asserted four U.S. patents — US12097161B2, US11938082B1, US12036174B1, and US11857482B1 — covering massage gun technology and the Therabody SmartGoggles product line, constituting a broad infringement action across the percussion therapy and wearable wellness device segment.
On July 25, 2025, the court ordered the Shenzhen Case severed from a related member case (8:24-cv-02034) and stayed pending the USPTO’s resolution of Post-Grant Reviews: PGR2024-00053 (challenging US11857482) and PGR2025-00013 (challenging US11938082). All district court deadlines — including the Markman claim construction hearing — were vacated. Critically, the stay carries a significant consequence for the plaintiffs: they are bound by statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) as to any final written decisions issued in those PGR proceedings, meaning arguments raised or reasonably available during the PGR cannot be re-litigated in district court.
The 387-day timeline to a stay — rather than a merits ruling — suggests Hyper Ice’s post-grant challenge strategy gained traction early, creating conditions for a court-ordered pause before claim construction could proceed. The public record does not disclose settlement negotiations or damages figures. The parties must file joint status reports every 90 days, and within 10 days of any Final Written Decision, must report their positions on lifting the stay. The outcome of the PGR proceedings will likely determine whether this litigation resumes or effectively ends through estoppel and patent invalidity findings.
Filing to Case Stayed in 387 days
387 days filed before stay — PGR proceedings now govern the timeline
Case stayed: what the USPTO PGR proceedings mean for both parties
A stay pending PGR is not a dismissal — it is a pause with teeth
A court-ordered stay pending Post-Grant Review suspends district court proceedings while the USPTO evaluates patent validity. Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2), once a PGR final written decision issues, the petitioner — here, Hyper Ice — and parties bound by the proceeding are estopped from arguing in district court any ground raised or reasonably available during the PGR. This makes the USPTO forum the decisive battlefield for at least two of the four asserted patents.
35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) estoppel appliesPlaintiffs accept estoppel risk in exchange for PGR resolution
The seven plaintiff manufacturers are explicitly bound by the PGR outcomes. If the USPTO cancels claims in US11857482 or US11938082, those claim positions cannot be re-argued in district court. Plaintiffs retain rights on the two patents not subject to current PGR proceedings — US12097161 and US12036174 — but the viability of the full action now depends heavily on whether any claims survive the USPTO review process.
PGR outcome binding on plaintiffsHyper Ice shifts the fight to the USPTO — a deliberate tactical move
By securing institution of two PGRs and obtaining a district court stay, Hyper Ice has moved validity disputes to a forum where the standard of proof — preponderance of evidence — favours challengers, and where claim construction is conducted under a broader interpretation framework. A successful PGR could eliminate or narrow the most commercially threatening patent claims before any damages exposure accrues at the district court level.
USPTO forum preferred by challengersMassage gun IP landscape held in suspension pending federal agency rulings
With four patents spanning percussion therapy devices and smart wearable wellness products — and a USPTO proceeding now governing two of them — the broader industry faces uncertainty around design freedom for massage gun hardware and connected wellness accessories. Competitors in this segment should monitor PGR2024-00053 and PGR2025-00013 dockets closely, as final written decisions will directly shape the claim scope available to both parties and third-party market entrants.
Monitor USPTO PGR docketsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Consortium of Chinese consumer health device manufacturers asserting four massage gun and smart goggle patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hangzhou Linghui Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Lishui Tianque New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Yongkang Dilaka Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Yongkang Health Freight Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Yongkang Tiange Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Zhejiang Aerlang Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Hyper Ice, Inc. — California-based percussion therapy and wellness technology company, and its IP subsidiarySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qianwu Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | SHM Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin A. Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lawrence Robert LaPorte | Attorney | Counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Miller Barondess, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a deliberate judicial preference for allowing the USPTO to resolve validity questions before expending district court resources on claim construction. The explicit imposition of 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) estoppel on the plaintiffs — written directly into the stay order — is notable: it goes beyond typical stay practice by pre-establishing the legal consequence of PGR outcomes for district court proceedings. The severance of the Shenzhen Case from member case 8:24-cv-02034 also suggests the court is managing a broader multi-case dispute structure, with each sub-case potentially tracking different PGR timelines and patent subsets.
US11857482, US11938082, US12097161, US12036174 — Percussion Therapy Device Patents
The four asserted patents — US12097161B2, US11938082B1, US12036174B1, and US11857482B1 — collectively span percussion therapy device architecture and smart wearable wellness accessories, specifically referencing massage gun hardware and the Therabody SmartGoggles product line. The patents carry relatively recent application dates, consistent with the rapid product innovation cycle in the consumer wellness device market. Two patents (US11857482 and US11938082) are currently under Post-Grant Review at the USPTO, indicating Hyper Ice identified prior art or patentability challenges sufficient to secure PGR institution — a threshold that requires a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
The strategic significance of these patents extends beyond this specific litigation. Massage gun technology has become a commercially contested space, with multiple global manufacturers competing on hardware design, motor performance, and connected software features. Patents covering core percussion mechanisms and smart wearable accessories represent blocking positions that can restrict competitor product development and market entry. The PGR proceedings will likely narrow or redefine the effective scope of at least two of these patents, with consequences for the entire competitive field — not only the seven plaintiff companies.
Should you run an FTO against US11857482, US11938082, US12097161 & US12036174?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing massage gun hardware or smart wellness wearable devices in the U.S. market should treat these four patents as active FTO risks. Two are under USPTO post-grant review — meaning their claim scope is in flux — but the remaining two (US12097161 and US12036174) are not currently challenged and carry full enforceability. Product teams developing percussion therapy devices or connected recovery accessories should map their designs against current claim sets before U.S. commercial launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against all four patents simultaneously, tracking claim amendments as PGR proceedings progress. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, claim narrowing events, and prior art landscapes that define the design space around these massage gun and wellness wearable patents — giving product teams the clarity to make defensible commercialisation decisions before the district court proceedings resume.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12097161B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar massage gun and wellness device patent cases in U.S. federal courts
Related patent disputes involving percussion therapy devices and wellness wearables in California federal courts and before the USPTO, including comparable PGR-stay scenarios.
What this case signals for the percussion therapy IP landscape
A multi-plaintiff stay with statutory estoppel signals an increasingly adversarial patent environment in consumer wellness device technology.
PGR petitions are now a primary litigation defence tool in wellness tech
Hyper Ice’s success in securing both a PGR institution and a district court stay demonstrates that filing post-grant review petitions early — before claim construction — is an effective strategy to shift validity disputes to the USPTO. Companies in the percussion therapy and wearable wellness segment should treat PGR filings as a standard component of litigation strategy, not a last resort.
Multi-plaintiff consortia face amplified estoppel risk in PGR-stayed cases
When multiple plaintiffs join a single action that is then stayed pending PGR, all are collectively bound by 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) estoppel. The seven Chinese manufacturers here cannot later re-litigate grounds available during the PGR proceedings. IP counsel advising plaintiff consortia should carefully evaluate which patents to assert and whether PGR vulnerability could undermine the entire enforcement campaign before it reaches trial.
Shenzhen v Hyper — key questions answered
The stay suspends all district court proceedings — including claim construction — while the USPTO completes Post-Grant Reviews of US11857482 (PGR2024-00053) and US11938082 (PGR2025-00013). The infringement claims are not dismissed; they are paused. The outcome of the PGR proceedings will determine whether the litigation resumes with narrowed claims, no claims, or the original claim sets intact.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2), once a PGR final written decision issues, a party to the proceeding — and parties bound by it — cannot raise in district court any ground of invalidity that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the PGR. The seven plaintiff manufacturers in the Shenzhen Case are explicitly bound by this estoppel, meaning they forfeit the ability to re-argue validity positions available during the PGR if the proceedings conclude adversely.
PGR2024-00053 targets US Patent No. 11,857,482, and PGR2025-00013 targets US Patent No. 11,938,082. Two further patents asserted in the case — US12097161B2 and US12036174B1 — are not currently subject to pending PGR proceedings, meaning they retain their full granted claim scope during the stay period.
The court severed Case No. 8:24-cv-01472 (the Shenzhen Case) from member case 8:24-cv-02034 to allow each case to track independently, as the PGR stay applies specifically to the Shenzhen Case parties and patent subset. Severance prevents the stay from automatically affecting proceedings in the related case, which may involve different parties, patents, or procedural postures.
Within 10 days of any Final Written Decision, the parties must file a joint report with the court stating their positions on lifting the stay. If PGR claims are cancelled, the litigation may effectively narrow or end. If claims survive, the district court proceedings — including the Markman hearing — can resume. The parties must also file joint status reports every 90 days during the stay, keeping the court informed of the PGR proceedings’ progress.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.