Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc.

Hyper Ice, Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against Therabody, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Both parties are prominent operating companies in the wellness technology sector, specializing in recovery and performance enhancement devices. Hyper Ice, founded in 2010, is known for its vibration, percussion, and thermal technology products, including the Hypervolt percussive massage devices. Therabody, founded as Theragun in 2008, is a global leader in wellness technology, primarily recognized for its Theragun line of percussive therapy devices, as well as RecoveryAir compression boots and TheraFace facial therapy devices.

The present case, 8:24-cv-02034-JWH-DFMx, specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 against Therabody's products. This patent, titled "Massage device having variable stroke length," broadly covers handheld percussive massage gun technology. It describes a device featuring a piston with a massaging head, driven by a motor via a crank and reciprocation linkage, often incorporating a battery assembly and a motor controller to monitor applied pressure. Although the specific accused products in this exact case filing are not detailed in the provided search results, related Hyperice lawsuits against Therabody have accused products such as the Theragun PRO, Elite, Mini, Prime, Relief, Sense, TheraFace PRO, and TheraFace LED of infringing similar percussive and LED-based therapy device technology.

This litigation is active and has been consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for pretrial purposes, including the Markman claim construction hearing. The case is presided over by Judge John W. Holcomb, a judge for the Central District of California with extensive prior experience in intellectual property law, having practiced at Knobbe Martens. This dispute is notable as it is part of a broader "patent war" in the highly competitive and rapidly growing percussive therapy device market, with Hyperice aggressively enforcing its intellectual property against rivals. The market for massage guns alone was valued at approximately $540 million in 2023 and is projected to exceed $1 billion in the coming years, making intellectual property disputes in this space particularly high-stakes. Furthermore, the patent at issue, US11938082, is currently facing a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00013) before the USPTO, which has led to stays in related district court cases.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc.

The patent infringement litigation Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc. (8:24-cv-02034-JWH-DFMx) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has seen significant activity, primarily characterized by extensive consolidation with other related cases and a stay in at least one related action due to parallel Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. While the initial case (8:24-cv-02034) was filed asserting Patent No. 11,938,082, its trajectory is now largely intertwined with a larger, consolidated proceeding, and a parallel PTAB challenge to the asserted patent has resulted in a stay in a related district court case.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Hyper Ice, Inc. filed its complaint against Therabody, Inc. in case 8:24-cv-02034 on September 19, 2024. An Amended Complaint was filed by Hyper Ice, Inc. on October 2, 2024. Therabody, Inc. subsequently filed counterclaims, to which Hyper Ice, Inc. filed its Answer and Defenses on November 13, 2024.

The patent at issue in this specific case, 11,938,082, is also involved in other related actions. For instance, in Merchsource, LLC v. Hyper Ice, Inc. (8:24-cv-01512), filed July 9, 2024, Patent No. 11,938,082 was asserted alongside other patents. Similarly, Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. v. Hyperice, Inc. (8:24-cv-01394), filed June 25, 2024, also asserted Patent No. 11,938,082.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

The most impactful pre-trial development has been the extensive consolidation of numerous Hyper Ice patent infringement lawsuits. The court transferred case 8:24-cv-02034 to Judge John W. Holcomb and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick on October 24, 2024.

Multiple related cases, including Hyper Ice actions against Therabody (e.g., 8:24-cv-00390, 8:24-cv-00391, 8:24-cv-00099, 8:24-cv-00410) and other defendants, were administratively closed and consolidated into 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for pretrial purposes, including claim construction. For example, 8:24-cv-00390 was consolidated into 8:24-cv-00098 on June 21, 2024. Cases 8:24-cv-01512 and 8:24-cv-01394, both asserting Patent No. 11,938,082, were also merged into lead case 8:24-cv-00098 on September 27, 2024. This means that for core pretrial matters related to these patents, proceedings are generally managed under the 8:24-cv-00098 docket.

Separately, on November 20, 2025, Therabody's motions to consolidate were granted, and case 8:25-cv-01939 was consolidated with 8:24-cv-02034, with 8:24-cv-02034 becoming the lead case for this specific consolidation. This highlights a layered consolidation structure where 8:24-cv-02034 is a lead case for some actions while also being a part of the larger consolidation under 8:24-cv-00098 for pretrial purposes.

On February 17, 2026, an order was issued granting Therabody's unopposed motion for leave to amend/supplement invalidity contentions in case 8:25-cv-01939, which is now consolidated into 8:24-cv-02034.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

A Markman hearing was initially scheduled for June 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the consolidated proceedings. This hearing was subsequently continued to June 4, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. As of June 15, 2026, the specific outcome or order from this Markman hearing has not been publicly detailed in the available search results. The Markman ruling is expected to define the scope of the asserted patent claims and will be pivotal for all consolidated cases.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

Beyond the order allowing Therabody to amend/supplement invalidity contentions on February 17, 2026, no other specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been identified.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The court has stated that a separate trial scheduling order will be issued after the claim construction process is complete, indicating that the cases have not yet reached the trial phase.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The underlying infringement claims in the consolidated cases remain active. While individual dockets were administratively closed upon consolidation, this is a procedural mechanism and not a dismissal on the merits. No final judgment or dismissal on the merits has been rendered in the primary consolidated action.

Notably, another related case, Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. v. Hyper Ice, Inc. (8:24-cv-01472), was severed from "member case 8:24-cv-02034" and stayed on July 25, 2025. This stay was issued pending the resolution of two Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) before the USPTO.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Two significant Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings are active against Hyper Ice patents. Specifically, PGR2025-00013 was filed by Therabody Inc. and challenges Patent No. 11,938,082. The status of PGR2025-00013 indicates that a Final Written Decision was issued on May 11, 2026. This decision will have a direct impact on the enforceability of Patent No. 11,938,082 in the district court litigation.

Another PGR, PGR2024-00053, targets Patent No. 11,857,482. The court's decision to stay case 8:24-cv-01472 (which asserted Patent Nos. 11,938,082 and 11,857,482, among others) pending the resolution of these PGRs highlights the strategic impact of these PTAB proceedings on the district court litigation. All district court deadlines for 8:24-cv-01472, including the Markman hearing, were vacated due to this stay.

Hyper Ice, Inc. is represented by the following counsel of record in Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc., case number 8:24-cv-02034-JWH-DFMx:

• Benjamin A. Herbert

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appears to be a primary external litigation counsel based on filings).
  • Firm: Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Benjamin Herbert has filed responsive pleadings and claim construction briefs for Hyper Ice, Inc. in this consolidated case. He was also mentioned as representing Hyperice in a January 2024 lawsuit against Therabody regarding patent infringement. He also appeared for Hyper Ice, Inc. as a defendant in a related patent case, MerchSource, LLC v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al (8:2024cv01512).

• Lawrence LaPorte

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. While his firm is large and has multiple offices, his involvement with California-based Hyper Ice suggests a likely California office.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: LaPorte was mentioned as representing Hyperice in the January 2024 patent infringement lawsuit against Therabody.

• Brian Arnold

  • Role: In-house counsel, Head of IP.
  • Firm: Hyper Ice, Inc.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Brian Arnold is Associate General Counsel and Head of IP at Hyperice. He was previously a patent litigation partner at several firms, including Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP. He was also served as general counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc. in the MerchSource, LLC v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al case.

While other firms like Knobbe Martens and O'Melveny & Myers have strong patent litigation practices, and have been mentioned in other Hyper Ice-related patent matters, the direct docket entries and news surrounding Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc. (8:24-cv-02034) primarily identify the attorneys listed above as representing the plaintiff. The specific filings for this case explicitly name Benjamin Herbert.

Defendant Therabody, Inc. is represented by several attorneys of record in Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc., case number 8:24-cv-02034-JWH-DFMx, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This case has been consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for pretrial purposes, and a related case, 8:25-cv-01939, was also consolidated into 8:24-cv-02034. The court has also stayed the case pending resolution of Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) at the USPTO concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082.

The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of Therabody, Inc.:

• Marc J. Pensabene

  • Role: Non-Resident Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results, typically associated with a firm outside the Central District of California for pro hac vice admission. Further investigation would be needed to identify the firm.
  • Relevant Experience: The provided search snippets do not offer details on his specific patent litigation experience.

• Bradley Michael Berg

  • Role: Counsel of record
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Relevant Experience: The provided search snippets do not offer details on his specific patent litigation experience.

• Cameron W. Westin

  • Role: Counsel of record
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Relevant Experience: The provided search snippets do not offer details on his specific patent litigation experience.

• Mark C. Johnson

  • Role: Non-Resident Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results, typically associated with a firm outside the Central District of California for pro hac vice admission. Further investigation would be needed to identify the firm.
  • Relevant Experience: The provided search snippets do not offer details on his specific patent litigation experience.

• Sarah L. Boone

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Relevant Experience: The provided search snippets do not offer details on her specific patent litigation experience.

Further research would be necessary to identify the specific law firms, office locations, and detailed patent litigation experience for each attorney. The current search results primarily indicate their appearances on the docket.