Infringement action filed 15 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and closed 26 May 2026, with US12213933B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Exemplary embodiments of massaging devices are disclosed herein. One exemplary embodiment includes a piston having a longitudinal axis, a massaging head connected to the piston, a motor located on a first side of the longitudinal axis and a handle located on a second side of the longitudinal axis. A drive mechanism for moving the piston and massage head is also included.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Toloco Inc., Guangzhou Balan Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd, Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronic Technology Co Ltd, Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co Ltd (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Hyper Ice Inc and Hyperice IP Subco LLC hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims asserted in this case and in the consolidated cases with prejudice, with each party bearing their own fees and costs."
Case 2:25-cv-01560 · W.D. Wash. · closed 26 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
2:25-cv-01560 is a patent infringement action brought by Toloco Inc against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, filed on 15 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case closed on 26 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-01560?
US12213933B1 (“Massage device with a releasable connection for a massaging head”), assigned to HYPERICE IP SUBCO, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Massage Gun.
How was case 2:25-cv-01560 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Toloco Inc., Guangzhou Balan Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co Ltd, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co Ltd, Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronic Technology Co Ltd, Shenzhen Jiaxin Electronic Technology Co Ltd (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Hyper Ice Inc and Hyperice IP Subco LLC hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims asserted in this case and in the consolidated cases wit
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:25-cv-01560 take?
284 calendar days, from filing on 15 Aug 2025 to closure on 26 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-01560?
Chief Judge Kymberly K. Evanson presided. Dandan Pan, Jie Li, Kevin J. O'Connor, Ruoting Men and Tao Liu are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Toloco. Benjamin Herbert and John Poulos appear for defendant Hyperice IP Subco.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:25-cv-01560 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-01560 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
