Sichuan Qianli-Beoka & Bob and Brad v. Hyperice: Massage Gun Patent Case Consolidated
Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology and Bob and Brad, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Hyperice, Inc. in the Central District of California asserting US11938082B1 covering massage gun technology. Within 94 days the case was consolidated with two related dockets into lead case 8:24-cv-00098 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Multi-plaintiff massage gun patent dispute lands in consolidated C.D. Cal. docket
Filed on 25 June 2024 in the Central District of California, this infringement action was brought by five co-plaintiffs — Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc., Bob and Brad LLC, Guangzhou Yunri Shangmao Co. Ltd., Huizhou Anchi Technology Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen Laige Technology Co. Ltd. — against Hyperice, Inc. and its subsidiary Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. The suit centres on US11938082B1, a patent directed at massage gun technology associated with the Bob and Brad brand of percussive therapy devices.
The case was formally closed on 27 September 2024 — just 94 days after filing — not through settlement or a merits ruling, but via a judicial consolidation order. The court merged case 8:24-cv-01394 and a companion docket, 8:24-cv-01512, into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing. Substantive proceedings, including claim construction briefing, will continue under the consolidated docket.
The rapid consolidation suggests the court recognised significant factual and legal overlap across the related actions — a common judicial efficiency measure in multi-case patent disputes. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing discussions, or substantive rulings on validity or infringement at this stage. Key questions — including the claim construction outcome and ultimate merits determination — remain unresolved and will unfold under the lead case number.
Filing to Case Consolidated in 94 days
94 days from filing to consolidation order — faster than the median C.D. Cal. patent docket
Case consolidated: what the court’s order means for both parties
Consolidation is procedural — not a merits ruling
A consolidation order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) merges cases sharing common questions of law or fact. No finding on infringement, validity, or damages has been made. All substantive issues — including claim construction of US11938082B1 — carry forward into lead case 8:24-cv-00098. The individual case number (8:24-cv-01394) is administratively closed but the underlying claims survive.
No merits adjudicationCoordinated proceedings may strengthen plaintiff coalition
By litigating alongside related cases before a single judge, the five co-plaintiffs can coordinate claim construction positions and share discovery costs. A unified Markman outcome favourable to US11938082B1 would apply across all consolidated matters simultaneously, potentially amplifying enforcement leverage against Hyperice across multiple product lines.
Enforcement continuesHyperice faces a consolidated multi-plaintiff front
Consolidation concentrates litigation risk for Hyperice: an adverse claim construction ruling in the Markman hearing would apply to all consolidated cases at once. However, Hyperice retains the right to move for severance for good cause. The court’s invitation to pursue a settlement conference before the Magistrate Judge also keeps a negotiated resolution on the table.
Severance motion possiblePercussive therapy IP landscape under judicial scrutiny
The consolidation of three related massage gun patent cases before a single C.D. Cal. judge suggests the percussive therapy device sector is experiencing concentrated patent enforcement activity. Competitors and new entrants in this space should monitor the Markman outcome in 8:24-cv-00098 closely, as claim construction rulings on US11938082B1 will define the scope of protectable percussive therapy technology.
Markman watch: 8:24-cv-00098Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. | Company | Medical technology and consumer device group — holder of US11938082B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bob And Brad, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Guangzhou Yunri Shangmao Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Huizhou Anchi Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Laige Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice, Inc. | Company | Hyperice, Inc. — sports recovery and percussive therapy device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward H. Rice | Attorney | Counsel for Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gary F. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marina N. Saito | Attorney | Counsel for Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Martin J. Foley | Attorney | Counsel for Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Edward Rice LLC | Law Firm | Representing Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Offices of Gary F. Wang | Law Firm | Representing Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Martin J. Foley, a PLC | Law Firm | Representing Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin A. Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Miller Barondess, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural in nature — it consolidates related dockets for administrative efficiency and sets a claim construction schedule, but makes no determination on infringement or validity. The reference to a Magistrate Judge settlement conference option signals the court is open to early resolution. Substantive rights and defences remain fully intact; the operative litigation arena is now lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM.
US11938082B1 — percussive therapy massage gun device technology
US11938082B1 is a US utility patent — the ‘B1’ designation indicates it issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting it was granted on its original claims as filed. The corrected application number is US18/515112. The patent is asserted in connection with Bob and Brad brand massage gun products, placing it squarely within the percussive therapy and sports recovery device space — a category that has seen rapid commercialisation and corresponding IP filing activity over the past several years.
The asserted patent’s connection to a recognised consumer brand (Bob and Brad) and its enforcement against a direct market competitor (Hyperice) suggests it covers commercially meaningful product features rather than peripheral technology. For sector participants, the outcome of claim construction in the consolidated C.D. Cal. proceedings will be the key indicator of how broadly the patent’s scope extends. Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing massage guns or similar percussive devices should assess exposure against this patent’s claims.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11938082B1?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or distributes percussive therapy devices, massage guns, or related sports recovery hardware, US11938082B1 is an active litigation risk. With three consolidated cases already pending in C.D. Cal. and a Markman hearing forthcoming, the enforcement perimeter of this patent is about to become significantly clearer — or broader. R&D and product teams should not wait for the claim construction ruling before initiating clearance analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11938082B1’s claim language against your product specifications, flag overlapping prior art, and identify potential design-around opportunities — all before your next product launch or procurement decision. With the consolidation order now in place and the Markman hearing on the horizon, there is a narrow window to act proactively rather than reactively.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11938082B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar percussive therapy and massage gun patent cases in C.D. Cal.
Cases involving percussive therapy device patents litigated in the Central District of California, including related Bob and Brad and Hyperice enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the percussive therapy device IP landscape
A three-case consolidation over massage gun technology in C.D. Cal. suggests a coordinated enforcement strategy worth monitoring.
Multi-plaintiff consolidation amplifies Markman stakes for all parties
When multiple cases sharing a patent are consolidated, a single claim construction order governs all dockets simultaneously. For Hyperice, an adverse Markman ruling on US11938082B1 carries compounded exposure. For plaintiffs, a favourable construction accelerates parallel enforcement tracks without duplicating expert and briefing costs.
Bob and Brad brand patents are actively enforced — FTO is non-optional
The filing of at least three related cases in the same court within weeks of each other is consistent with a systematic enforcement campaign. Any company designing or importing percussive therapy or massage gun products should treat US11938082B1 as a live clearance risk and conduct FTO analysis before product launch or procurement decisions.
Sichuan v Hyperice — key questions answered
The consolidation order administratively closes case 8:24-cv-01394 and merges it into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing. No merits ruling has been made. The plaintiffs’ infringement claims against Hyperice remain live and will be adjudicated under the lead docket.
The patent asserted is US11938082B1, with application number US18/515112. It covers technology associated with Bob and Brad brand massage gun products in the percussive therapy device space. The ‘B1’ designation indicates the patent issued without post-grant amendments to its claims.
The lead case is 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM in the Central District of California. Cases 8:24-cv-01394 and 8:24-cv-01512 were consolidated into this lead docket for pretrial purposes, including the Markman claim construction hearing.
Yes. The court’s consolidation order expressly provides that any party may make a motion at any time to sever the cases, provided good cause is shown. This preserves Hyperice’s option to seek a separate trial track if procedural or strategic grounds support doing so.
Following the Markman claim construction hearing, the court indicated it will issue a separate trial scheduling order. The claim construction rulings on US11938082B1 will govern all consolidated cases and are likely to be a pivotal factor in any subsequent settlement negotiations or trial preparation for both plaintiffs and Hyperice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.