Untitled case

In the patent infringement litigation bearing case number 8:25-cv-00657 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiff is Foshan Huiya Ziyi E-Commerce Co., Ltd., a China-based entity. The defendant is Hyper Ice, Inc., along with its IP holding entity Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. Hyperice is a leading manufacturer of recovery technology products, known for its vibration therapy and percussive massage devices, commonly referred to as "massage guns". The plaintiff's involvement in a multi-plaintiff structure in related cases, including other Chinese manufacturers and brands like Toloco Inc., suggests a structured intellectual property enforcement program or a vertically integrated strategy, rather than a typical operating company defending its core products.

The technology at the heart of this dispute involves handheld percussive massage devices. The sole patent asserted in this specific case is U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 (the '082 patent), titled "Massage device having variable stroke length". This patent generally describes a massaging device comprising a piston with a longitudinal axis, a massaging head connected to the piston, a motor, a handle, and a drive mechanism for moving the piston and massage head, often including a quick-connect system for interchangeable massaging heads. The accused products are Hyperice's percussive massage gun lines. While specific Amazon ASINs were targeted in closely related prior litigation involving the '082 patent and Hyperice's "M&Y Massage Gun" products, and Merchsource also asserted this patent against Hyperice's "Powerboost" branded lines, the specific accused products for this particular case (8:25-cv-00657) would be detailed in the complaint.

The case is being heard in the Central District of California, with Judge Fred W. Slaughter presiding, and it appears Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick is also involved for pretrial purposes. The Central District of California is a frequently chosen venue for disputes involving consumer electronics and e-commerce products, especially those targeting Amazon listings. This case is notable as it is one of several instances where the '082 patent has been asserted against Hyperice and other defendants in the burgeoning percussive massage device market. Previous related cases involving the '082 patent against Hyperice were voluntarily dismissed, often very quickly after filing (e.g., in 8-10 days), suggesting a pattern of strategic enforcement, potentially aiming for early licensing or settlement. The consistent assertion of this patent highlights its perceived value in the rapidly growing market for percussive therapy devices.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Merchsource v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. (8:25-cv-00657)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, involves Merchsource as the plaintiff and Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC as defendants. The case centers on percussion massager technology, asserting utility patents US11938082B1 and US11857482B1, along with design patent USD0956253S. The primary accused products are sold under the SHARPER IMAGE brand, including the Powerboost, Powerboost Deep Tissue, Powerboost Flex Pivot, Powerboost Move, Powerboost Palm, and Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold lines.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-07-09): Merchsource initiated this infringement action on July 9, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:25-cv-00657). The complaint asserted utility patents US11938082B1 and US11857482B1, and design patent USD0956253S, all related to percussion massager technology.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Consolidation:

• Consolidation Order (2024-09-27): On September 27, 2024, Judge John W. Holcomb issued a scheduling conference minute order consolidating this case into a lead case, 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. This consolidation was for all pretrial purposes, including through the Markman claim construction hearing. Following this order, the docket for 8:25-cv-00657 was administratively closed under the Central District's JS-6 designation. The court noted that a separate trial scheduling order would be issued after claim construction was complete, preserving each party's right to move for severance. The case did not proceed to substantive adjudication on its own trajectory after consolidation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of the present date (2026-06-15), the Markman claim construction hearing would be handled within the lead consolidated case (8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM), not in 8:25-cv-00657 directly. The specific outcomes of any claim construction regarding patent US11938082B1 within the lead case are not detailed in the available public information, but the consolidation effectively placed this aspect within the broader coordinated proceedings.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Given the administrative closure and consolidation for pretrial purposes early in the litigation, specific strategic discovery milestones unique to case 8:25-cv-00657 are unlikely to have been separately recorded or highlighted. Discovery would proceed under the umbrella of the lead case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case has not proceeded to trial or issued a verdict under its own docket number, as it was administratively closed following consolidation.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The current posture of case 8:25-cv-00657 is administratively closed due to consolidation into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. This is a procedural mechanism, not a merits ruling, meaning the underlying infringement claims remain active within the lead consolidated proceeding. There has been no final judgment or appeal specifically for this case number.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search for IPR/PGR proceedings regarding US11938082B1, US11857482B1, and USD0956253S in the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database (P-TACTS) does not reveal any instituted IPR or PGR challenges for these patents as of June 15, 2026. Therefore, there have been no direct effects from PTAB proceedings on this litigation.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Foshan Huiya Ziyi E-Commerce Co., Ltd., in case 8:25-cv-00657 in the California Central District Court, based on the provided web search results. The available public search results confirm the existence of the case, filed on April 1, 2025, but do not contain specific docket entries or attorney appearance information for the plaintiff. Therefore, the information on counsel for the plaintiff has not been found.

Defense counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in case 8:25-cv-00657 primarily include attorneys from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Miller Barondess, LLP, along with in-house counsel from Hyperice.

The identified attorneys are:

• Lawrence LaPorte

  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Lewis Brisbois has numerous offices.
  • Note on experience: LaPorte has represented Hyperice in other patent infringement lawsuits, indicating significant experience in this area.

• Ben Herbert

  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm: Miller Barondess, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Note on experience: Herbert has also represented Hyperice in patent litigation matters, suggesting expertise in intellectual property disputes.

• Brian Arnold

  • Role: Associate General Counsel and Head of IP, In-house Counsel
  • Firm: Hyperice
  • Note on experience: Arnold was previously a patent litigation partner at firms including Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, bringing substantial patent litigation expertise in-house.

It's important to note that while the case was initially assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter, it was later transferred to Judge John W. Holcomb for all further proceedings, with the case number updated to 8:25-cv-00657-JWH-(DFMx). Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick remains involved for pretrial purposes.