Toloco Inc v. Hyperice IP Subco: Massage Gun Patent Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Toloco Inc brought a patent infringement action against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Western District of Washington over massage gun technology protected by US12213933B1. The case — spanning six consolidated actions — was voluntarily dismissed after 284 days following a settlement agreement between the parties.
Massage Gun IP Battle Ends in Stipulated Dismissal After Settlement
Toloco Inc filed this patent infringement action against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Western District of Washington on 15 August 2025, asserting US12213933B1 covering massage gun technology. The case was presided over by Judge Kymberly K. Evanson and involved multiple consolidated proceedings, with additional plaintiff entities including Guangzhou Balan Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd, Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronic Technology Co Ltd, and Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co Ltd, alongside Hyper Ice Inc as an additional defendant.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, all claims and counterclaims in this case and in the consolidated cases were dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing their own fees and costs. The specific terms of the underlying settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case resolved in 284 days — a relatively contained timeline for multi-party consolidated patent litigation. The consolidation of multiple plaintiff and defendant entities suggests a coordinated supply-chain dispute spanning several Chinese manufacturers and the Hyperice group. What drove the parties to resolve, and whether any licensing or commercial arrangements underpin the settlement, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 284 days
284 days from filing to voluntary dismissal in W.D. Washington
US12213933B1 — Massage Gun Percussion Therapy Device
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing percussion therapy massage guns in the US market should treat US12213933B1 as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is prepared to pursue multi-entity, consolidated litigation — targeting both Chinese manufacturers and US brand IP holders simultaneously. Product teams developing next-generation massage gun hardware, motor assemblies, or control systems should assess freedom to operate before commercialisation.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation recites dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice across the case and its consolidated proceedings, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. No court found infringement, validity, or claim scope — the order records a party-agreed resolution rather than a merits determination. The patent US12213933B1 therefore exits this litigation without judicial construction of its claims.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. Here the stipulation was filed pursuant to a settlement agreement, and the order dismisses all claims and counterclaims with prejudice across the case and its consolidated actions. The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal; the docket order is styled as a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.
Stipulated · Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)With prejudice: re-filing on the same claims is barred
The stipulation expressly provides for dismissal with prejudice, meaning neither Toloco Inc nor the consolidated plaintiff entities may re-assert the same infringement claims against Hyperice IP Subco or Hyper Ice Inc on the same patents and accused products. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing terms or covenant not to sue form part of the settlement.
With prejudice · no re-filingHyperice exits without an adverse merits ruling
Hyperice IP Subco and Hyper Ice Inc secured dismissal of all claims and counterclaims without any court finding on infringement, validity, or enforceability of US12213933B1. Each party bears its own fees and costs. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the patent's validity and scope untested by the court.
No merits ruling · own costsSettled consolidation signals IP pressure across the supply chain
The involvement of five Chinese manufacturing entities alongside Hyperice suggests the dispute targeted multiple tiers of the massage gun supply chain simultaneously. Resolution via settlement, with prejudice, without a costs award to either side, is consistent with a negotiated commercial outcome. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record, leaving the broader competitive implications uncertain.
Supply chain · multi-party settlementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Toloco Inc | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hyperice IP Subco, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dandan Pan | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jie Li | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin J. O'Connor | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP | Law Firm | Representing Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP (CA) | Law Firm | Representing Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C | Law Firm | Representing Toloco IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Herbert | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Poulos | Attorney | Counsel for Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | PROCOPIO CORY HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP (IRVINE) | Law Firm | Representing Hyperice IP Subco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Kymberly K. Evanson | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the percussion therapy device IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Toloco v. Hyperice massage gun dispute — track filing trends, portfolio gaps, and competitive positioning across the percussion therapy sector.
Toloco Inc's patent activity in percussion therapy
Toloco Inc's assertion of US12213933B1 — a recently granted patent under application US18/760576 — suggests an active, relatively recent prosecution strategy in the massage gun space. Monitoring Toloco's broader portfolio and any continuation filings can reveal whether they are expanding claim coverage beyond the technology asserted here.
Toloco · portfolio monitoringFiling trends in massage gun and percussion device patents
The percussion therapy device category has seen accelerating patent filings from both established wellness brands and Chinese OEM manufacturers. Tracking filing trends across motor assembly, amplitude adjustment, and user-interface elements can help R&D teams identify crowded sub-domains and emerging white space ahead of product launches.
Filing trends · percussion therapyHyperice's patent portfolio and defensive IP position
Hyperice operates through a dedicated IP sub-entity structure, suggesting deliberate IP ring-fencing. Analysing Hyperice IP Subco's ownership assignments and Hyper Ice Inc's own patent filings can reveal the depth of their defensive portfolio in percussion therapy — critical intelligence for any competitor assessing freedom to operate or licensing exposure.
Hyperice · defensive portfolioAdjacent innovation gaps near US12213933B1's claim space
With US12213933B1's claim scope untested in litigation, adjacent design spaces — such as app-connected percussive devices, multi-frequency amplitude systems, or ergonomic attachment innovations — may represent lower-risk R&D territory. A claim-landscape analysis can surface where coverage is thin and where differentiated product development can proceed with reduced IP exposure.
White space · adjacent claimsSimilar massage gun and percussion therapy patent cases
Browse patent infringement actions in the percussion therapy and consumer wellness device space, including related W.D. Washington filings and massage gun IP disputes.
What this case signals for the percussion therapy device IP landscape
A consolidated, multi-entity massage gun patent action resolved in under a year — here is what practitioners and product teams should note.
Supply-chain consolidation tactics are now live in massage gun IP
Toloco's use of consolidated actions naming five Chinese manufacturers and the Hyperice IP holding entity together signals a strategy of simultaneously pressuring the production and distribution tiers. Patent holders in the percussion therapy space should assess whether their supply chain partners are named in related proceedings.
US12213933B1 exits litigation with validity untested
Because the case settled before any merits ruling, the validity and claim scope of US12213933B1 were never adjudicated. Competitors operating in the massage gun space cannot rely on this litigation to establish any invalidity position — the patent remains fully enforceable on its face.
Toloco v Hyperice — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed. The docket order, entered pursuant to a settlement agreement, dismissed all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
US12213933B1, filed under application number US18/760576, was the patent asserted. It covers massage gun technology in the percussion therapy device category. Its specific claims were not construed or adjudicated in this litigation, so the patent exits the case with its full presumption of validity intact.
The complaint consolidated five Chinese entities — Guangzhou Balan Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd, Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronic Technology Co Ltd, and Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co Ltd — alongside Toloco Inc. This multi-entity structure is consistent with coordinated action across a manufacturing supply chain, though the precise commercial relationships are not detailed in the public record.
The stipulated dismissal with prejudice bars the named plaintiffs from re-asserting the same claims against Hyperice IP Subco and Hyper Ice Inc on the same accused products and patents. Whether any broader covenant not to sue or licensing arrangement was agreed is not disclosed in the available record.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and was presided over by Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. It was a first-instance district court proceeding, lasting 284 days from filing on 15 August 2025 to closure on 26 May 2026.
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.