Shenzhen Zhichuyi v. Hyper Ice: Smart Cupping Patent Dismissed in 16 Days
Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Hyper Ice, Inc. in the Northern District of California asserting US11931174B1, covering smart cupping therapy massager technology. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the entire case without prejudice just 16 days after filing — one of the shortest active litigation windows in this product category.
A 16-day infringement action over smart cupping therapy IP
On October 21, 2025, Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese technology company and holder of US11931174B1, filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The defendant, Hyper Ice, Inc. — a well-known recovery technology brand — was accused of infringing claims covering smart cupping therapy massager technology, specifically referencing products marketed under the ‘Cakoutanb’ brand.
On November 6, 2025, just 16 days after filing, Shenzhen Zhichuyi filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against Hyper Ice, Inc. and co-defendant DataFeel Inc. without prejudice. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal requires no court order and is available only before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, suggesting Hyper Ice had not yet filed a formal response.
The 16-day lifespan of this case is notably brief even by pre-answer dismissal standards, suggesting the resolution — whether driven by a private agreement, a licensing discussion, or a strategic retreat — occurred with unusual speed. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Zhichuyi retains the right to refile claims under US11931174B1. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing arrangement, or reasons for the withdrawal, leaving the commercial outcome between the parties unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 16 days
16 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed: what this early exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal before answer, no court order needed
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a unilateral right available to the plaintiff before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. It requires no judicial approval and takes immediate effect upon filing. This procedural pathway is often used when parties reach a private resolution or when plaintiff opts to withdraw before incurring significant litigation costs. It leaves no merits ruling on the record.
Pre-answer dismissalWithout prejudice: the distinction matters — and the record is silent
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims at a future date, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar those claims. The notice in this case expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Shenzhen Zhichuyi retains the option to reassert US11931174B1 against Hyper Ice or DataFeel. The public record does not disclose whether any private agreement accompanied this dismissal.
Refiling right preservedHyper Ice avoids a merits ruling — but exposure persists
Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. secured dismissal of all claims without any finding of infringement or validity. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, neither defendant can treat the matter as fully resolved. The absence of a responsive pleading on the docket suggests the case ended before Hyper Ice had meaningfully engaged, which may indicate a rapid private resolution or plaintiff’s own strategic reassessment.
No merits finding; exposure remainsSmart cupping IP remains live — watch for refiling
The smart cupping therapy and recovery device market is an area of growing IP activity. A without-prejudice dismissal leaves US11931174B1 fully enforceable and Zhichuyi free to pursue further licensing discussions or litigation. Competitors and OEM suppliers in the cupping and percussive recovery device space should treat this case as an early signal of assertion activity around this patent, not a resolution of the underlying IP risk.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Smart massager technology company — holder of US11931174B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyper Ice, Inc. | Company | Hyper Ice, Inc. — premium recovery and sports technology device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qianwu Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | SHM Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly names both Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. as dismissed defendants. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it forecloses no future claim and grants Hyper Ice no preclusive protection. The phrasing ‘all claims asserted by Plaintiff’ confirms the entire action — not merely selected counts — was withdrawn. No merits adjudication occurred; neither infringement nor validity of US11931174B1 has been determined by any court.
US11931174B1 — Smart Cupping Therapy Massager Technology
US11931174B1 is a granted US utility patent held by Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd., filed under application number US18/388489. The patent covers smart cupping therapy massager technology — a category that combines traditional cupping therapy principles with electronically controlled suction, pressure regulation, and massage functions in a consumer device format. The grant of a B1 designation indicates allowance without any published application, suggesting a relatively direct prosecution path.
The commercial significance of this patent lies in the rapid growth of the smart recovery device market, where products combining cupping, percussive therapy, and connected wellness features are competing for shelf space and consumer adoption. Hyper Ice is one of the most recognised brands in this space, making it a strategically meaningful target. US11931174B1 represents a potential blocking position for any manufacturer or platform partner offering electronically controlled cupping massage functionality, and its enforceability is undiminished by this dismissal.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US11931174B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, distributing, or retailing electronically controlled cupping therapy devices, smart massage products, or connected recovery wearables should evaluate their exposure to US11931174B1. The patent has now been asserted in US federal court, confirming the holder’s willingness to enforce. The without-prejudice dismissal means the threat has not been neutralised. OEM suppliers, white-label device makers, and platform partners in the cupping or percussive recovery space are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11931174B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and surface related continuation applications or family members that could extend the patent’s coverage. With potential refiling risk on the table, running a structured FTO analysis now — before any new complaint is filed — is materially lower cost than responding to a second infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11931174B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smart massager and recovery device patent cases in N.D. Cal.
Cases involving smart recovery device and massage therapy patents in the Northern District of California, including voluntary dismissal patterns and related enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the smart recovery device IP landscape
A 16-day patent action ending without prejudice rarely signals a clean resolution — it typically marks the start of a longer IP negotiation.
Without-prejudice dismissals are not the end — monitor for refiling
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice this quickly, it consistently suggests either a private licensing agreement is in progress or the plaintiff is repositioning. Companies in the cupping therapy and recovery technology space should monitor US11931174B1 for continuation filings, new assertions, and licensing activity rather than treating this dismissal as a closed matter.
Pre-answer timing signals plaintiff retained full strategic control
Filing a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice before the defendant answers means plaintiff chose the exit, not the court. This preserves optionality entirely for Shenzhen Zhichuyi. Hyper Ice and DataFeel received no formal finding in their favour. Any party competing in the smart massager or cupping device category should assess their own FTO position against US11931174B1 now.
Shenzhen v Hyper — key questions answered
Shenzhen Zhichuyi Technology Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. in the Northern District of California on October 21, 2025, asserting US11931174B1 covering smart cupping therapy massager technology. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the entire case without prejudice on November 6, 2025, just 16 days after filing, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued and no costs were awarded.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means Shenzhen Zhichuyi retains the full right to refile infringement claims under US11931174B1 against Hyper Ice, DataFeel, or any other party at a future date, subject to applicable limitations periods. The patent’s validity and enforceability are unaffected. No court has ruled on infringement or invalidity, so neither party received a formal determination on the merits.
The public record does not explain the basis for DataFeel Inc.’s inclusion. However, naming both a consumer brand (Hyper Ice) and a technology or data-platform company (DataFeel) as co-defendants is consistent with enforcement strategies targeting the full product ecosystem — for instance, where a connected device relies on a third-party software or sensor platform that may also infringe the asserted patent claims. All claims against both defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
A 16-day case duration is exceptionally short even by pre-answer dismissal standards in the Northern District of California, where the median patent case lifespan is measured in years. The filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice before the defendant could answer suggests the plaintiff retained full control of the exit and that no litigation milestones — such as scheduling orders, claim construction, or discovery — were reached. This timeline is consistent with either a rapid private resolution or a strategic withdrawal to reposition.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 4:25-cv-09026, and assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The plaintiff was represented by attorney Qianwu Yang of SHM Law Firm. No defendant law firm or counsel was recorded on the docket before the voluntary dismissal was filed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.