Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC

Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which was swiftly dismissed. The plaintiff, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd., is a Chinese technology company that has patented various devices, including those related to massage gun technology. They filed the suit jointly with Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., and Toloco Inc.. The defendant, Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, is an intellectual property holding subsidiary of Hyper Ice, Inc., a leading U.S.-based health technology company well-known for its percussive massage guns (such as the Hypervolt line), vibration therapy, and compression devices used for sports recovery. The accused products were Hyperice's massage gun offerings, specifically targeting five Amazon product listings.

The sole patent asserted in this action was U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 (US11938082B1), which broadly covers massage gun technology, particularly relating to a massage device having a variable stroke length for deep muscle stimulation. This patent describes components such as a handle, a piston, a massaging head connected to the piston, a motor, and a drive mechanism that moves the piston in a back-and-forth motion. The procedural posture saw the case filed in the Central District of California, a common venue for patent disputes, particularly relevant given Hyperice's headquarters in Irvine, California. The case did not progress to any substantive hearings or a judge being assigned, as it was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs just eight days after filing.

This case is notable primarily for its exceptionally short lifespan, concluding in a voluntary dismissal within an unprecedented eight days of filing, making it one of the shortest on record for a patent infringement action. The rapid dismissal, with no defendant counsel appearing on the docket, suggests a potential pre-suit settlement, a strategic re-evaluation, or an opportunistic filing. Furthermore, the involvement of Toloco Inc. as a co-plaintiff is intriguing, as Hyperice IP Subco, LLC is simultaneously engaged in its own consolidated patent infringement litigation against Toloco concerning different massage gun patents in the same district. This rapid filing and dismissal, combined with parallel litigation efforts by both the plaintiff group and Hyperice in the competitive percussive massage device market, points to a dynamic and complex landscape of intellectual property enforcement in this industry.

The patent infringement litigation Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01349, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was short-lived, concluding with a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs just eight days after filing.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and the outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • On June 19, 2024, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd., along with co-plaintiffs Guangzhou Shirui Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jianyuan Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., and Toloco Inc., jointly filed a patent infringement complaint against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC.
  • The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082B1, which pertains to massage gun technology.
  • The plaintiffs' complaint targeted five specific Amazon product listings associated with Hyperice IP Subco, LLC.
  • No answer or counterclaims were filed by the defendant due to the rapid termination of the case.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: No substantive pre-trial motions were filed given the swift dismissal.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The case did not reach the claim construction stage.

• Discovery Milestones: No discovery milestones were reached.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions: The case did not proceed to trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

  • On June 27, 2024, just eight days after the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, terminating the action in its entirety.
  • The public docket indicates the termination basis as "Voluntary dismissal."
  • The dismissal notice stated the action was terminated "in its entirety" by the plaintiffs, meaning all asserted claims and accused products were included in the withdrawal.
  • The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, but under Rule 41(a)(1), such a dismissal is typically interpreted as without prejudice if not explicitly stated otherwise.
  • No finding of infringement, validity, or damages was made by the court.
  • No counsel for the defendant appeared on record, which is consistent with a dismissal occurring before a formal response was required from Hyperice IP Subco, LLC.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: There is no public record of any parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Brief Massage Gun Patent Case

In the quickly dismissed patent infringement case of Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiff, Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd., was represented by Glacier Law LLP.

Given the case's voluntary dismissal just eight days after filing and the absence of any defendant response, detailed individual attorney appearances may be limited on the public docket. However, Glacier Law LLP is explicitly identified as the firm representing Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd.

Further specifics on individual attorneys from Glacier Law LLP, their roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), office locations, or specific patent litigation experience are not readily available in the initial search results for this particular, short-lived case.

In the patent infringement case Guangzhou Talong Technology Co., Ltd. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01349, no counsel of record appeared for the defendant, Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. The action was filed on June 19, 2024, and voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in its entirety on June 27, 2024, just eight days later. Public docket records indicate that no defendant counsel of record appeared before the dismissal, which is consistent with the short duration of the case and the absence of any responsive pleadings filed by the defendant.