Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al.

The patent litigation "Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al." is a declaratory judgment action filed by seven Chinese consumer health technology companies against Hyper Ice, Inc. and its IP holding subsidiary, Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. The plaintiffs, including Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Aerlang Technology Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Linghui Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., are primarily manufacturers and suppliers of electric scooters and related products, though in the context of this litigation, they are involved with massage gun technology. Hyper Ice, Inc. is a California-based high-performance wellness brand known for its recovery and movement enhancement technology, particularly its line of percussion massage guns under the "Hypervolt" brand. Hyperice IP Subco LLC is Hyper Ice's intellectual property holding entity. The accused products in this broader patent dispute are various percussion massager devices, commonly known as massage guns, and potentially smart goggle technology.

The case was filed on July 3, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, with Judge John W. Holcomb presiding and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick assigned to the case. The plaintiffs asserted four U.S. patents: US12097161B2, US11938082B1, US12036174B1, and US11857482B1. The specific patent at issue for this case overview, US11938082, describes a massage device having a variable stroke length, including a piston with a longitudinal axis, a massaging head, a motor, and a handle, along with a drive mechanism for moving the piston and massage head. This patent, among others, broadly covers innovations in percussion massage device technology. This venue is significant as the Central District of California is a major federal court, and Judge Holcomb has a background in intellectual property law.

This case is part of a larger, aggressive patent enforcement strategy by Hyperice in the rapidly growing percussion massage device market, which is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Hyperice has actively pursued litigation against numerous companies, including rivals and retailers, alleging infringement of its percussion massage technology. This declaratory judgment action by the Chinese manufacturers appears to be a defensive maneuver in response to Hyperice's broader campaign to "clean up" the percussion market from alleged imitators and knockoffs. The case has been notably impacted by parallel proceedings at the USPTO, as it was severed from a related member case and stayed on July 25, 2025, pending the resolution of Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) for US11857482 and US11938082, specifically PGR2024-00053 and PGR2025-00013, respectively. This stay indicates a high-stakes procedural pause, as the outcome of the PGRs will significantly influence the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents in the district court litigation.

The patent infringement litigation Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. (Case No. 8:24-cv-01472-JWH-DFMx) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, initiated as a declaratory judgment action, has seen significant early developments, primarily a stay pending Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the USPTO.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
The case was filed on July 3, 2024, by Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Aerlang Technology Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Linghui Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. against Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco LLC. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The case was initially assigned to Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth, but was subsequently transferred to Judge John W. Holcomb and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick on July 19, 2024, at which point the case number was updated to reflect the new judicial assignment (8:24-cv-01472-JWH-DFMx). The plaintiffs collectively asserted four U.S. patents: US12097161B2, US11938082B1, US12036174B1, and US11857482B1.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
On July 25, 2025, the court ordered the "Shenzhen Case" (8:24-cv-01472) to be severed from a related member case (8:24-cv-02034). Following this, the court stayed the instant action pending the resolution of two Post-Grant Review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This decision was based on a joint stipulation to stay the case entered into by the plaintiffs/counterdefendants and defendants/counterclaimants. All deadlines in the litigation were vacated as a result of the stay.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
The stay in the district court litigation is directly tied to two Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the USPTO: PGR2024-00053 and PGR2025-00013. These PGRs are challenging Hyper Ice's patents. The outcome of these administrative reviews will have a binding effect on the plaintiffs due to statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2). As of June 11, 2026, the case remains stayed pending the resolution of these PGR proceedings.

As of the current date (2026-06-15), the case is active but stayed. No information regarding claim construction outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, or final judgment is available, as the litigation has been paused pending the outcome of the USPTO's Post-Grant Reviews.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel for this declaratory judgment action.

Let me pull the actual docket and verify party/attorney changes.

Plaintiff representatives

Summary

The plaintiff side in No. 8:24-cv-01472 has been represented by a two-firm team: SHM Law Firm (Palo Alto, CA — a firm with a China-facing IP litigation practice headed by Qianwu Yang) as U.S./California counsel of record, and Lantai Partners (Qianhai) Law Firm (Shenzhen) as China-side co-counsel. The complaint was signed by three attorneys, all of whom appear as "Attorney for Plaintiffs."

A fourth SHM attorney, Aoyu Yang (杨傲宇), is identified in SHM's own public write-up as part of the "principal team members" on this case and related Hyperice litigations, but I found no docket citation confirming a formal appearance for him in No. 8:24-cv-01472 — treat him as team support unless a notice of appearance is located.

Grounding

• The complaint caption block in C.D. Cal. No. 8:24-cv-01472 is signed: "By: Qianwu Yang — QIANWU YANG (Cal. Bar No. 336610) … YI YI (Cal. Bar No. 353482) — SHM LAW FIRM, 3000 El Camino Real, Building 4, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306 … Jing Chen (State Bar No. 357313) … LANTAI PARTNERS (QIANHAI) LAW FIRM … Attorney for Plaintiffs." It is dated May 14, 2025 (an amended/first amended complaint), which explains why the signatory block differs from the July 3, 2024 filing date in the metadata. (Reproduced at exparte.ai complaint PDF.)
• Third-party docket compilations confirm the same: PatSnap lists "Qianwu Yang — SHM Law Firm" as counsel for Shenzhen Kelaisiman in 8:24-cv-01472 (patsnap.com case page). Note, however, that these compilations list only Qianwu Yang, not Yi Yi or Jing Chen, so they under-report the team.
• SHM's own July 18, 2025 case write-up (in Chinese) describes appearing for "Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Zhejiang" massage-gun e-commerce clients in No. 8:24-cv-01472, opposing a TRO/preliminary injunction, and states that Hyperice withdrew its PI motion before SHM filed its formal answer; it names Qianwu Yang, Yi Yi, and Aoyu Yang as principal team members (shm.law). This source is the firm's own marketing material — the outcome claim ("rights holder withdrew the PI") is consistent with the case posture but I could not independently verify it against a docket entry.
• Law360's firm-level docket tracker for ScienBiziP shows an October 2, 2026 filing in "Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. et al v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al" (C.D. Cal.) captioned "Ex 1_CM/ECF Email Notifications Not Received Case No. 8/24-cv-01472-JWH-DFM)(Chen, Jing)" (law360.com/firms/scienbizip/dockets). Two implications: (a) Jing Chen appears to remain active on the docket well after the stay; and (b) Law360's firm tagging suggests an affiliation with ScienBiziP (a Shenzhen-origin IP services firm) rather than, or in addition to, Lantai Partners. I could not verify which firm Jing Chen is presently at — flagging this as an unresolved discrepancy rather than asserting it.

No separate local counsel

Unlike the defense side (where Miller Barondess and Lewis Brisbois appear), no separate C.D. Cal. "local counsel" appears for plaintiffs. SHM Law Firm's Palo Alto office functions as the California counsel of record, with California bar-admitted signatories (Yang, Yi, Chen). This is an inference from the signature block, not from a docket order.

Gaps, caveats, and contradictions to flag

1. Party-list mismatch (material). The complaint text I retrieved lists, as plaintiffs represented by the above attorneys: Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading; Yongkang Tiange Technology; Lishui Tianque New Energy Technology; Yongkang Dilaka Technology; Yongkang Health Freight Co.; Hangzhou Linghui Intelligent Technology; and others — i.e., roughly a dozen Chinese entities. It does not show "Zhejiang Aerlang Technology Co., Ltd.," which appears in the case metadata's plaintiff list. Either Aerlang was added by a later amended pleading (I could not retrieve a pleading naming it), or the metadata's plaintiff roster conflates this case with a companion action. I found no separate counsel of record for Zhejiang Aerlang in No. 8:24-cv-01472; if Aerlang is a plaintiff, it appears to be represented by the same SHM/Lantai team, but that is unconfirmed.
2. Case status discrepancy. The metadata (and prior sections of this analysis) describe the case as active but stayed. Third-party docket aggregators instead report the case as "Closed" on 07/02/25 or "closed 25 Jul 2025" (exparte case page; patsnap). A PTAB exhibit list also references a "Stipulation of Partial Dismissal, Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-01472-JWH-DFM (Lead Case), 8:24-cv-02034-JWH-DFM (Consolidated) (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2025), ECF No. 60" (Docket Alarm, PGR2025-00026) — note the caption there appears garbled/transposed (01472 is the Kelaisiman DJ action, 02034 is Hyper Ice v. Therabody). The October 2, 2026 filing by Jing Chen suggests the docket is not fully dead. Recommendation: pull the actual PACER docket sheet for entries 55–65 (June–July 2025) to confirm whether the "closure" was a partial dismissal of certain parties, a consolidation-and-close, or a stay-related administrative closing.
3. Unretrieved documents. I was unable to retrieve: (a) the original July 3, 2024 complaint signature block (only the May 14, 2025 amended version was accessible); (b) any notice of appearance or substitution of counsel after the stay; (c) any pro hac vice applications for the plaintiff side. Nothing indicates sealed attorney filings on the plaintiff side, but I cannot affirmatively rule that out.

Suggested next verification steps

• PACER docket sheet, No. 8:24-cv-01472-JWH-DFMx, entries 1–10 and 55–75 (attorney appearances and the June/July 2025 dismissal and stay orders).
• SHM Law Firm attorney profile pages for Qianwu Yang, Yi Yi, and Aoyu Yang (confirm current bar status and case list).
• Confirm Jing Chen's current firm (Lantai Partners vs. ScienBiziP) via the California State Bar member search using bar no. 357313.

I'll research defense-side counsel for Hyper Ice / Hyperice IP Subco. Starting with docket-level and firm-level searches.

Good leads: PatSnap lists Benjamin A. Herbert (Lewis Brisbois) and Lawrence R. LaPorte (Miller Barondess) for Hyper Ice. Let me verify each and find docket-level appearances.

Defendant representatives (Hyper Ice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco LLC)

Summary

Both defendants are represented by the same two-attorney trial team that Hyperice uses across its entire percussion-massage-gun enforcement campaign in C.D. Cal.: Benjamin A. Herbert (then of Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles; his current firm website, checked October 2026, shows him at Procopio in Irvine) and Lawrence R. LaPorte (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles). Both are California-admitted and appear as counsel of record directly — i.e., no separate "local counsel" is used on the defense side, because both are L.A.-based C.D. Cal. practitioners.

Grounding

• Direct case-level attribution (this docket). PatSnap's docket-derived case page for Shenzhen Kelaisiman Trading Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al., No. 8:24-cv-01472 (C.D. Cal.), lists, under "Hyper Ice, Inc.": "Benjamin A. Herbert · Lawrence Robert LaPorte," with firms "Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Miller Barondess, LLP," and states: "Benjamin A. Herbert and Lawrence Robert LaPorte appear for defendant Hyper Ice" (patsnap.com case page). Caution: PatSnap's firm/attorney pairing is aggregated and, in my review of the underlying signature blocks, is imprecise — the correct mapping is Herbert = Miller Barondess and LaPorte = Lewis Brisbois, not the reverse.
• Signature blocks confirming the mapping. Every Hyperice complaint in the parallel C.D. Cal. campaign carries the same two-firm block: "MILLER BARONDESS LLP — BEN HERBERT, CA#277356 — bherbert@millerbarondess.com — 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 26th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067" and "LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP — LAWRENCE R. LAPORTE, CA#130003 — lawrence.laporte@lewisbrisbois.com — 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, California 90071 — Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYPER ICE, INC. and HYPERICE IP SUBCO, LLC" (Hyper Ice, Inc. et al. v. Joicom Corp., No. 8:24-cv-00098, Compl., exparte PDF; Hyper Ice, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC, No. 8:24-cv-02035, Compl., RPX document; Hyper Ice v. Bob and Brad, No. 2:24-cv-03212, RPX document).
• Same team, joint filings. The May 14, 2025 Joint Status Report in the consolidated Hyperice matters is filed under Herbert's Miller Barondess signature block and LaPorte's Lewis Brisbois block, both as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYPER ICE, INC., and HYPERICE IP SUBCO, LLC" (CourtListener RECAP PDF).
• Trial-team designation. The Rule 26(f)/pretrial worksheet in Hyper Ice v. Joicom states: "Hyperice expects that the attorneys trying this case for Hyperice will be Ben Herbert of Miller Barondess, LLP and Lawrence LaPorte of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP" (CourtListener, 8:24-cv-00098, Dkt. 24).
• Herbert's continuing role for Hyperice in 2026. In the newest C.D. Cal. matter, Therabody, Inc. v. Hyper Ice, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-00003-JWH-(KESx), Herbert entered the defense appearance for Hyper Ice, filing the Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 19) and a stipulation extending time (Dkt. 18) on January 22, 2026 (Justia docket). He is also filing for Hyper Ice in the 2026 Hyper Ice v. MerchSource refiling (8:26-cv-02154), showing he remains Hyperice's relationship partner on this campaign.
• Herbert's current firm. His firm profile page (Procopio, Irvine) lists "Lead counsel for Hyper Ice, Inc., in litigation across the United States concerning percussive massage devices" and a 2026 activity calendar (procopio.com/people/benjamin-herbert).

In-house counsel

Hyperice's legal department is headed by Jon Howell, General Counsel and (per his bio) Chief Legal Officer, based in Yorba Linda / Irvine, CA; he joined Hyperice as GC in February 2020 (theorg.com profile; Orange County Business Journal general-counsel honoree listing, ocbj.com). I found no docket entry showing Howell (or any Hyperice in-house lawyer) appearing of record in No. 8:24-cv-01472 or in the consolidated Hyperice matters. He should be treated as the client-side IP decision-maker, not counsel of record.

Local counsel

None separately. Both Herbert and LaPorte are Los Angeles–based and admitted to the C.D. Cal. bar (Cal. Bar Nos. 277356 and 130003), so Hyperice's two-firm team serves as its own California counsel of record — a structural contrast with the plaintiff side, which relies on an out-of-district Palo Alto/China team (SHM Law Firm / Lantai).

Gaps, caveats, and contradictions to flag

1. No PACER appearance entry for 8:24-cv-01472 retrieved. My attribution of Herbert and LaPorte to this specific docket rests on PatSnap's docket-derived counsel listing plus the uniform two-firm signature block used by the same defendants in every companion case before the same judge (Holcomb, J.). I did not retrieve a docket sheet or notice of appearance bearing ECF numbers in 01472 itself. Because the case has been stayed since July 25, 2025, however, the appearance set is very unlikely to have changed mid-stay.
2. Herbert's firm change is unresolved on this docket. Signature blocks through at least mid-2025 show Miller Barondess; his current professional profile shows Procopio (Irvine). I could not locate a substitution/notice of change of firm in 8:24-cv-01472 or in 8:26-cv-00003. It is also unclear whether LaPorte remains at Lewis Brisbois (his L.A. office address and @lewisbrisbois.com email are as of the 2025 filings). Recommendation: confirm via the C.D. Cal. docket and the State Bar of California member search.
3. Do not treat PatSnap's "prosecution counsel" entries as defense counsel. The same PatSnap page lists "DATAFEEL INC." and "FOLEY & LARDNER LLP" in a counsel field; those relate to patent prosecution/ownership-side records (DataFeel is a Hyperice-affiliated entity that now co-plaintiffs with Hyper Ice in 2026 suits), not to appearances in this DJ action.
4. PTAB-side counsel for Hyperice (patent owner) is unverified. Hyperice is patent owner in PGR2024-00053 and PGR2025-00013, the proceedings that triggered the stay. The PTAB counsel of record in those PGRs may be a different firm from Herbert/LaPorte, and I have no sourced basis to name them — flagging rather than guessing.
5. Caption confusion carries over. As noted in the prior section, one PTAB exhibit list references a "Stipulation of Partial Dismissal … No. 8:24-cv-01472-JWH-DFM (Lead Case), 8:24-cv-02034-JWH-DFM (Consolidated)" (Docket Alarm, PGR2025-00026), which transposes the caption of Hyper Ice v. Therabody onto this docket number. That does not affect the counsel identification — the same Herbert/LaPorte team signed pleadings in both 01472 and 02034.

Suggested next verification steps

• Pull the PACER docket sheet for No. 8:24-cv-01472-JWH-DFMx and read the "Attorneys to be Noticed" / party-counsel block plus any Notice of Appearance, Substitution of Counsel, or Change of Address/Employer filings (most likely ECF