Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO

This patent infringement litigation, Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, involves two prominent players in the health and wellness technology sector. Plaintiffs Hyper Ice, Inc., an American health technology company founded in 2010/2011, and its intellectual property holding entity, Hyperice IP Subco, LLC, specialize in designing and manufacturing recovery and movement enhancement products, notably their Hypervolt line of percussion massage devices. Hyperice IP Subco, LLC's involvement reflects a structured IP holding strategy aimed at managing litigation risk and monetizing the patent portfolio. The defendant, JOICOM CORPORATION, operates under the brand RENPHO, a California-founded company that offers an ecosystem of "smart healthy living solutions" including smart scales, massagers, massage guns, and other fitness devices, with a mission to provide affordable wellness products.

The core of the dispute centers on JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO's allegedly infringing massage gun products. Hyper Ice asserts two U.S. patents: US11938082 and US11857482. Both patents generally cover innovations in percussive massage device technology. Specifically, US11857482 claims technology dating back to 2013, which Hyperice contends is widely utilized in most modern massage guns on the market. Both patents carry a B1 designation, indicating they were issued without prior public pre-issuance publication, a detail relevant to their validity analysis.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under case number 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, with Judge John W. Holcomb and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick presiding, this case serves as the lead for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Numerous other related patent infringement actions brought by Hyperice against various defendants, also concerning percussion massage technology, have been administratively closed and consolidated into this lead case for efficiency through the Markman hearing phase. The Central District of California, while experiencing a decline in patent filings in recent years compared to its peak, remains a significant patent litigation venue, consistently ranking among the top districts nationally, and its judges are noted for their experience in intellectual property law.

This litigation is notable as it is part of an aggressive and broad IP enforcement campaign by Hyperice, targeting numerous competitors and retailers in the rapidly growing percussive massage gun market, which was valued at over $542.6 million in 2023 and is projected to exceed $1 billion. Hyperice has publicly stated its intent to use aggressive legal actions to protect its intellectual property and "reinstill credibility of the percussion market" against perceived infringers. The multi-defendant consolidation strategy underscores Hyperice's coordinated effort to assert its patent rights across the industry. Furthermore, the patents at issue, US11938082 and US11857482, have been subject to Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) at the USPTO in related actions, indicating active validity challenges.

The patent infringement litigation Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, Case No. 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 16, 2024. The case quickly resolved through a confidential settlement and dismissal, with no public verdict or judicial ruling on the merits reported.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-01-16: Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (collectively "Hyperice") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting U.S. Patents 11938082 and 11857482. This case was designated as the lead case for coordinated pretrial proceedings involving several related actions.

2. Pre-trial Motions & Consolidation:

• This case became the lead docket for consolidation of other Hyperice patent infringement actions involving similar massage gun technology.
• 2024-05-20: In a related action, Hyper Ice v. Musclegun, LLC (8:24-cv-00100), filed on January 16, 2024, Hyperice filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. This occurred before Musclegun, LLC filed any responsive pleading, and the case was resolved in 125 days.
• 2024-06-21: The case Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Toloco, Inc. (8:24-cv-00099), asserting US11857482B1, was administratively closed and consolidated with four other related Hyperice infringement cases into the lead docket 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing.
• 2024-09-27: The case Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. et al. v. Hyperice, Inc. et al. (8:24-cv-01394), asserting US11938082B1, was formally closed and merged with a companion docket (8:24-cv-01512) into the lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing.

3. Claim Construction (Markman):

• While the lead case was established for coordinated pretrial proceedings including Markman hearings, the primary case against JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO was resolved before reaching a public claim construction outcome. Hyperice did provide a P.R. 4.2 Exchange of Claim Terms for Construction and Extrinsic Evidence in the lead case.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific strategic discovery milestones were publicly reported for the lead case, likely due to its early resolution.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Between January 2024 and August 2024: The case resolved through a confidential settlement and subsequent dismissal within 206 days of filing. No public verdict or judicial ruling on the merits was reported, and specific damages awards, licensing terms, or injunctive relief provisions were not disclosed.
• 2024-11-11: In a separate but related matter, AC Green Limited (operating as Renpho) filed a declaratory judgment action against Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel, Inc. (Case No. 8:24-cv-02460) concerning US12097161B2, a patent related to eye massager technology.
• 2025-02-07: AC Green Limited voluntarily dismissed its declaratory judgment lawsuit without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. This dismissal occurred 88 days after filing.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• As of the current date, no PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically targeting U.S. Patents 11938082 or 11857482 and involving JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO or related entities as petitioners have been publicly identified in the provided search results. A PGR proceeding (PGR2026-00051) was filed by Hyper Ice, Inc. on May 25, 2026, but it pertains to a different patent, US12396919.## Case Summary: Hyper Ice v. JOICOM CORPORATION (C.D. Cal. 8:24-cv-00098)

This patent infringement litigation, Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, Case No. 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, initiated on January 16, 2024, swiftly concluded with a confidential settlement and dismissal. This case also served as the lead case for coordinated pretrial proceedings for several other patent infringement actions involving U.S. Patents 11938082 and 11857482.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-01-16: Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (collectively "Hyperice") filed the initial patent infringement complaint against JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO. The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 11938082 and 11857482, both pertaining to percussion massage device technology. The case was designated as the lead case for a series of related patent infringement actions.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance — Consolidation:

• The court consolidated multiple related patent infringement lawsuits into this lead case (8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM) for coordinated pretrial proceedings, including eventual Markman hearings.
  • 2024-05-20: A related case, Hyper Ice v. Musclegun, LLC (8:24-cv-00100), also filed on January 16, 2024, asserting US11857482B1, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Hyperice before Musclegun, LLC filed any responsive pleading.
  • 2024-06-21: The case Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Toloco, Inc. (8:24-cv-00099), asserting US11857482B1, was administratively closed and consolidated with four other related Hyperice actions into the lead docket for pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing.
  • 2024-09-27: The action Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. et al. v. Hyperice, Inc. et al. (8:24-cv-01394), asserting US11938082B1, was formally closed and merged with a companion docket (8:24-cv-01512) into the lead case (8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM) for all pretrial purposes through the Markman hearing.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While the lead case was established for coordinated claim construction proceedings, the specific action against JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO was resolved before a public Markman ruling. Hyperice did exchange preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence in the lead case.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific strategic discovery milestones were publicly reported for the lead case against JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, which is consistent with an early, confidential resolution.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal — Final Disposition:

• Between January 2024 and August 2024: The core litigation, Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, reached a confidential settlement and was subsequently dismissed within 206 days of its filing. There was no public verdict or judicial ruling on the merits, and the terms of any damages or injunctive relief were not disclosed.
• 2024-11-11: In a separate, related action, AC Green Limited (operating as Renpho) filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel, Inc. (Case No. 8:24-cv-02460) in the Central District of California, seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity for U.S. Patent No. 12097161B2, covering eye massager technology.
• 2025-02-07: AC Green Limited voluntarily dismissed its declaratory judgment lawsuit without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. This dismissal occurred 88 days after filing.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• No specific PTAB IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings related to U.S. Patents 11938082 or 11857482 involving JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO as a petitioner have been publicly identified. While Hyper Ice, Inc. filed a PGR proceeding (PGR2026-00051) on May 25, 2026, it concerns a different patent, US12396919.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, Case No. 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM:

• Benjamin A. Herbert

  • Role: Lead Counsel (External)
  • Firm: Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Herbert is a partner whose practice focuses on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation litigation. He has served as lead counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc. in multi-district patent litigation campaigns concerning percussive massage devices, similar to those at issue in this case. He has a track record of securing significant jury verdicts in intellectual property trials, including over $1.5 billion in jury verdicts across three trial teams within two years. He was formerly co-leader of the intellectual property practice at Procopio. He is explicitly listed as an attorney for Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in filings for this lead case.

• Lawrence R. LaPorte

  • Role: Counsel (External)
  • Firm: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. LaPorte is identified as representing Hyperice in its patent infringement lawsuits, including those related to percussion massage technology. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP's Intellectual Property & Technology litigation practice represents both plaintiffs and defendants in patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation across various federal districts. He is also explicitly listed as an attorney for Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in filings for this lead case.

• Brian Arnold

  • Role: In-House Counsel (Associate General Counsel & Head of IP)
  • Firm: Hyperice, Inc.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Arnold serves as Hyperice's Associate General Counsel and Head of Intellectual Property. He was previously a patent litigation partner at several law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP. His extensive background in patent litigation informs Hyperice's IP enforcement strategy.

• Jon Howell

  • Role: In-House Counsel (General Counsel)
  • Firm: Hyperice, Inc.
  • Relevant Experience: As General Counsel for Hyperice, Mr. Howell is involved in the company's intellectual property enforcement strategy, including fighting counterfeit products and protecting Hyperice's patents.

As of the current date, the provided search results from the PACER docket and other legal intelligence platforms for Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO, Case No. 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, primarily identify counsel for the plaintiffs, Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. These include Benjamin A. Herbert of Miller Barondess, LLP, and Lawrence Robert LaPorte of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP.

The consolidated nature of this lead case with other related patent infringement actions involving different defendants (such as Therabody, Merchsource, and Toloco) means that the identified counsel in those related cases represent those specific defendants. For instance, in a separate, closed case (Fka Distributing v. Joicom, Renpho, asserting US7722553B2), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP appeared for defendants including Joicom Corporation and Renpho USA, Inc., with William E. Thomson, Jr. specifically mentioned in connection with Renpho USA, Inc.. However, this does not confirm their representation of JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO in the currently active lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM.

No specific counsel of record has been identified in the provided search results for JOICOM CORPORATION d/b/a RENPHO within the context of case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM itself. If filings related to defendant's counsel are sealed, or if counsel has not yet made a public appearance on the docket, this information would not be accessible through the current searches.