Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. et al. v. Hyperice, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. et al. v. Hyperice, Inc. et al., involves multiple plaintiffs, primarily Chinese manufacturers and a U.S.-based wellness brand, asserting patent rights against a prominent American health technology company in the percussive therapy device market. The plaintiffs include Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc., a Chinese manufacturer of rehabilitation equipment and massage guns operating under the "Beoka" brand; Bob and Brad LLC, a U.S. company founded by physical therapists known for their popular health and wellness content and a line of "Bob and Brad" brand massage gun products; and other Chinese entities: Guangzhou Yunri Shangmao Co. Ltd., Huizhou Anchi Technology Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen Laige Technology Co. Ltd., all likely involved in the manufacturing and distribution of percussive therapy devices. The defendants are Hyperice, Inc., an American health technology company headquartered in Irvine, California, which designs and manufactures recovery and movement enhancement products, notably its "Hypervolt" line of percussion massage guns, and its intellectual property holding entity, Hyperice IP Subco, LLC.

The core of the dispute centers on the plaintiffs' accusation that Hyperice's percussive massage devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 (US11938082B1). This patent, associated with the "Bob and Brad" brand of devices, generally covers a "massage device having variable stroke length". It details massaging devices comprising a piston, a massaging head connected to the piston, a motor, a drive mechanism for moving the piston and massage head, and often includes a handle and a control panel. The technology is directed at deep muscle-stimulating devices aimed at increasing muscle metabolism, enhancing the lactic acid cycle, and relieving pain.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and was assigned to Judge John W. Holcomb. Within 94 days of filing, the case was administratively closed and consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial proceedings, including the Markman hearing. The Central District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its experienced judges, some of whom participate in the Patent Pilot Program, and its efficiency in managing complex intellectual property disputes through measures like consolidation. This case is particularly notable as it occurs within a bustling "massage gun patent landscape". Hyperice itself is an aggressive enforcer of its own intellectual property in this growing market, having initiated numerous lawsuits against competitors and retailers alleging infringement of its patents, such as US11857482B1. This litigation, therefore, represents a defensive counter-action or an independent assertion by a group of manufacturers and a well-known brand against a market leader in a highly competitive industry.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. et al. v. Hyperice, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 8:24-cv-01394-JWH-DFM
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filed: 2024-06-25
Terminated: 2024-09-27 (Administratively Closed, Consolidated)
Patents at Issue: US11938082

This case, along with several others, was administratively closed and consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for pretrial proceedings through the Markman hearing. The underlying claims remain active within the consolidated docket.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-06-25: Plaintiffs Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc., Bob and Brad LLC, Guangzhou Yunri Shangmao Co. Ltd., Huizhou Anchi Technology Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen Laige Technology Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Hyperice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082, which covers massage gun technology.
• 2024-09-29: Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.
• 2024-10-25: Defendants Hyperice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint, which included a jury demand and Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment.
• 2024-11-13: Plaintiffs filed an Answer to the Counterclaim.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-09-27: The case was administratively closed and consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM for all pretrial purposes, specifically through the Markman claim construction hearing. This consolidation, a procedural measure for administrative efficiency, merged related dockets that share common questions of law or fact. The court indicated that substantive proceedings, including claim construction briefing, would continue under the consolidated docket, and a separate trial scheduling order would be issued after claim construction is complete. The court also noted the option for parties to engage in a settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of the current date (2026-06-15), the consolidated lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM is in the pretrial phase, with claim construction (Markman hearing) being a pivotal upcoming event. No Markman outcomes have been reported for this patent as the claim construction process is ongoing within the lead case.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Specific discovery milestones for this individual case are not detailed in the available information due to its early consolidation. However, all substantive activity, including discovery, is proceeding under the lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case has not reached the trial stage.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case was administratively closed on September 27, 2024, and consolidated into lead case 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. This is a procedural closure, not a dismissal on the merits, meaning the underlying claims of patent infringement remain active in the lead case.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of public databases for PTAB proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 (US11938082B1) did not immediately reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. Therefore, there is no reported effect from parallel PTAB proceedings on this litigation to date.

Identifying the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc. et al. v. Hyperice, Inc. et al. (8:24-cv-01394-JWH-DFM) requires examining the docket filings for this case and its consolidated lead case, 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM. The provided search results detail the case's consolidation and the parties involved, but a definitive list of counsel for the specific plaintiffs in 8:24-cv-01394 is not explicitly present in the provided snippets.

While information regarding other consolidated cases (e.g., Merchsource v. Hyper Ice) mentions law firms like Avyno Law PC and Renner Otto representing Merchsource, these firms are not directly stated to represent Sichuan Qianli-Beoka Medical Technology Inc., Bob and Brad LLC, Guangzhou Yunri Shangmao Co. Ltd., Huizhou Anchi Technology Co. Ltd., or Shenzhen Laige Technology Co. Ltd.

The Justia Dockets entry for Bob and Brad, LLC v. Hyper Ice, Inc. et al (8:24-cv-01394) notes a situation where an attorney was removed due to unresolved Pro Hac Vice status, indicating that non-resident counsel are involved. However, this snippet does not name the attorney or their firm.

Without direct access to the court's docket for case 8:24-cv-01394 or the lead case 8:24-cv-00098, it is not possible to definitively identify the full counsel of record representing all the plaintiffs. Filings are sealed, or current comprehensive lists of counsel appearing for these specific plaintiffs in this particular litigation are not publicly available through the provided search results. Therefore, specific names, roles, firms, office locations, or relevant patent litigation experience for the plaintiff's counsel cannot be provided at this time based on the available information.

Hyperice, Inc. and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC are represented by the following counsel:

• Benjamin A. Herbert (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Miller Barondess, LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Herbert is listed as counsel for Hyperice in the consolidated lead case, 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, and also appears in related consolidated cases.

• Lawrence Robert LaPorte (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Note: LaPorte is also listed as counsel for Hyperice in the consolidated lead case, 8:24-cv-00098-JWH-DFM, and related consolidated cases.

While not explicitly named as "lead counsel" in the provided search results, both Benjamin A. Herbert and Lawrence Robert LaPorte appear as primary attorneys representing Hyperice in the key filing for preliminary claim constructions within the consolidated lead case, indicating their significant roles in the litigation.

Additional attorneys often involved in Hyperice's patent litigation, who may be involved in this consolidated matter in various capacities (e.g., of counsel, local counsel), based on other related cases and general firm experience, include:

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Mirzaie's practice focuses on patent litigation and licensing, with over $600 million obtained for clients in the past five years and an undefeated jury trial record. He is a registered patent attorney and has been recognized as a Southern California Super Lawyer from 2022-2026. He has represented patent owners in PTAB IPR proceedings.

• Joseph H. Lee

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • Office Location: Orange County, California (rejoined in Los Angeles)
  • Note: Lee is a partner in Weil's IP, Technology & Science Litigation practice. He is a trained mechanical engineer and former software developer, representing a wide range of technology companies across all phases of IP litigation, including trial and claim construction.

• Jonathan E. Singer

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: San Diego, California
  • Note: Singer is a principal and heads the life sciences litigation practice at Fish & Richardson, with extensive experience as lead counsel in jury and bench trials, and expertise in Hatch-Waxman litigation. He has been involved in significant pharmaceutical patent disputes, including cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Ryan K. Walsh

  • Firm: Jones Day
  • Office Location: Atlanta, Georgia (co-leader of intellectual property litigation for Jones Day's global IP practice)
  • Note: Walsh is a trial lawyer with over 25 years of experience in patent and high-stakes technology litigation, with first-chair experience in various venues, including the International Trade Commission and the Federal Circuit. He defends clients accused of infringement and enforces intellectual property rights across a wide range of disciplines. Note that there are other attorneys named "Ryan Walsh" with different specializations (e.g., tax law, eDiscovery, complex trial and appellate litigation) at other firms. The description provided here refers to Ryan K. Walsh of Jones Day, whose experience aligns with the needs of patent litigation.