Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Therabody, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Therabody, Inc., pits two major competitors in the booming health and wellness technology market against each other. Plaintiff Hyper Ice, Inc., operating commercially as Hyperice, is a leading U.S.-based company known for its Hypervolt percussive massage devices, compression systems, and other recovery technologies. Co-plaintiff DataFeel Inc. is also listed on the docket. Defendant Therabody, Inc. is a global leader in wellness technology, renowned for inventing the Theragun percussive therapy device and offering a broad ecosystem of recovery and self-care solutions. Both companies are operating entities vying for market dominance in the high-performance recovery segment.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082, titled "Massage device having variable stroke length." This patent generally covers technology related to handheld percussive therapy devices, commonly known as massage guns, encompassing aspects of their internal mechanisms such as pistons, massaging heads, motors, and drive systems. While the specific accused products in this exact case are not explicitly detailed in the prompt, related litigation between the parties consistently targets Therabody's popular Theragun line of percussive massagers, including models like the Theragun PRO, Elite, Mini, Prime, Relief, and Sense, as well as the TheraFace PRO and TheraFace LED.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the case is presided over by Judge John W. Holcomb. The procedural posture is active but consolidated; on November 20, 2025, this case (8:25-cv-01939) was consolidated with an earlier-filed action, 8:24-cv-02034, which is now the lead case. A claim construction (Markman) hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2026, after which a trial schedule will be set, indicating the litigation is progressing towards key adjudicative phases. This particular case is notable as part of an ongoing "patent war" between two direct and fierce competitors in the consumer wellness and recovery device market, involving multiple lawsuits and counter-claims, including allegations of defamation. Furthermore, U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 is currently under Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00013) at the USPTO, a proceeding that has led to stays in other related district court actions involving this patent.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments in Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Therabody, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01939-JWH-(DFMx):

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. filed the initial patent infringement complaint against Therabody, Inc. on August 29, 2025. This was later amended to a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Therabody, Inc. filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint and also brought counterclaims against Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. The specifics of these counterclaims are not detailed in the provided search results but Hyper Ice and DataFeel later filed an answer to Therabody's counterclaims on October 31, 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Consolidation Motion: Therabody, Inc. filed a motion to consolidate this case (8:25-cv-01939) with another case, Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02034. This motion was granted by Judge John W. Holcomb on November 20, 2025. As a result, Case No. 8:25-cv-01939 was consolidated into the lower-numbered Case No. 8:24-cv-02034, and all future filings and proceedings will be made in the lead case. The Clerk was directed to close Case No. 8:25-cv-01939 administratively.
• Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions: Therabody's unopposed motion for leave to amend/supplement invalidity contentions was granted by Judge John W. Holcomb on February 17, 2026.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• Following the consolidation, a claim construction hearing (Markman) is currently scheduled to take place in person on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Discovery Milestones:

• A Joint Rule 26(F) Report was filed on October 30, 2025.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred as the case is still in the pre-trial phase, with a claim construction hearing scheduled.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case (8:25-cv-01939) was administratively closed after being consolidated with Case No. 8:24-cv-02034. The consolidated case is active.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to patent 11938082 did not return specific results from the USPTO PTAB database. While IPRs and PGRs are common mechanisms to challenge patent validity outside of district court litigation, no such proceedings for patent 11938082 were found in this instance.Here's a detailed chronology of the key legal developments in Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Therabody, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01939-JWH-(DFMx):

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-08-29: Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed the initial patent infringement complaint against Therabody, Inc. (Defendant). On the same day, a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement was filed, with the filing fee previously paid.
• 2025-10-31: Plaintiffs Hyper Ice, Inc. and DataFeel Inc. filed their Answer to Defendant Therabody's Counterclaims to the Second Amended Complaint. (Note: While the specific date for Therabody's initial answer and counterclaims in case 8:25-cv-01939 is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, the existence of an answer to counterclaims indicates they were filed prior to this date.)

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-11-06: A Joint Stipulation to Continue the Scheduling Conference and Hearing Date was filed by Defendant Therabody, Inc., seeking to move the date from November 17, 2025, to November 20, 2025.
• 2025-11-07: An order was issued by Judge John W. Holcomb granting the Joint Stipulation to Continue the Scheduling Conference.
• 2025-11-20: A significant minute order was issued by Judge John W. Holcomb. Therabody's motion to consolidate Case No. 8:25-cv-01939 with the lower-numbered Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02034, was granted. As a result, Case No. 8:25-cv-01939 was consolidated into Case No. 8:24-cv-02034, and all future filings and proceedings were directed to be made in the lead case. The Clerk was instructed to close Case No. 8:25-cv-01939 administratively.
• 2026-02-13: Defendant Therabody, Inc. filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend/Supplement Invalidity Contentions.
• 2026-02-17: Judge John W. Holcomb issued an order granting Therabody's unopposed motion for leave to amend/supplement invalidity contentions.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2026-06-03: A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman) is set to occur in person at 10:00 a.m. in the consolidated case.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• 2025-10-30: A Joint Rule 26(F) Report was filed by Counter Defendants DataFeel Inc. and Hyper Ice, Inc.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• No trial events have occurred, and no verdicts or post-trial motions have been rendered, as the case is in the pre-trial phase within the consolidated action.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2025-11-20: Case No. 8:25-cv-01939 was administratively closed following its consolidation into Case No. 8:24-cv-02034. The consolidated case remains active.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents:

• As of the current date, searches of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) and other legal news sources did not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically challenging patent 11938082. While IPRs and PGRs are common in patent litigation, no such parallel proceedings have been identified for this particular patent in the context of this case.

The plaintiff(s), Hyper Ice, Inc. et al., are represented by the following counsel:

Benjamin Herbert

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, Irvine, CA
• Experience: An award-winning intellectual property litigator, Benjamin Herbert has served as lead counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc. in litigation concerning percussive massage devices across the United States. He has a strong record in patent and trade secret litigation involving various advanced technologies and has helped secure significant jury verdicts for plaintiffs in intellectual property trials.

Brian G. Arnold

• Role: In-house Counsel
• Firm: Hyperice, Inc., Irvine, CA
• Experience: As the Associate General Counsel and Head of Intellectual Property at Hyperice since October 2023, Brian G. Arnold oversees the company's intellectual property matters. His background includes serving as a partner at several law firms, with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation.

Based on available web search results, Benjamin Herbert has filed documents on behalf of the plaintiffs in this specific case (8:25-cv-01939-JWH-(DFMx)). Brian G. Arnold serves as in-house counsel for Hyperice. While Lawrence LaPorte was mentioned in connection with a different, dismissed Delaware lawsuit between Hyperice and Therabody, there is no explicit public record from the provided search results confirming his appearance as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the Central District of California case (8:25-cv-01939-JWH-(DFMx)) involving patent 11938082.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Therabody, Inc.

Therabody, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys, including patent litigation specialists, in the consolidated patent infringement case. The following counsel have been identified:

• Sarah L. Boone

  • Role: Associate Attorney (Likely part of the lead counsel team, specializing in IP disputes).
  • Firm: Renner Otto, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Experience: Ms. Boone focuses her practice on intellectual property disputes, encompassing trademarks, patents, copyrights, and unfair competition. She has represented clients in U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and practices before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. She also has experience prosecuting U.S. patent applications.

• Marc J. Pensabene

  • Role: Partner (Likely lead counsel).
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience: Mr. Pensabene is a nationally recognized patent litigator with extensive experience in complex patent litigation matters involving various technologies, including computer technology, electronics, and engineering. He has led trial teams for industry leaders.

• Mark C. Johnson

  • Role: Managing Partner, Registered Patent Attorney (Appearing Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm: Johnson Dalal, with offices in Fort Lauderdale, Plantation, Tampa, Safety Harbor, and Port Charlotte, Florida.
  • Experience: Mr. Johnson is a Registered Patent Attorney with the USPTO and a Florida Board Certified Expert in Intellectual Property Law. His practice focuses on the protection, prosecution, and preservation of Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, and he has significant experience preparing and prosecuting patents across various technology areas. He also has prior experience as a commercial litigator, providing him with courtroom experience. He was granted an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case.
  • Note: It is important to distinguish this Mark C. Johnson, a patent attorney with Johnson Dalal, from other attorneys named Mark C. Johnson found in public records who practice in different legal areas and locations (e.g., business and commercial law in Rockford, Illinois, or criminal defense in Boulder, Colorado). The context of this patent infringement case strongly indicates the patent-specialized Mark C. Johnson from Johnson Dalal as the relevant counsel.