Aoty Sports v. Domesick: Four-Patent Exercise Apparatus Case Dismissed on Jurisdiction
Aoty Sports, Inc. brought an infringement action in the Illinois Southern District Court against Michael Domesick, asserting four patents covering plank support exercise apparatus and related methods. After 251 days, the court granted Domesick’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, terminating the case without prejudice.
Jurisdiction, not merits, ends Aoty Sports’ four-patent exercise apparatus claim
Aoty Sports, Inc. filed suit on 23 February 2024 in the Illinois Southern District Court against Michael Domesick, asserting infringement of four US patents — US11491364B2, US9895573B2, US10286245B2, and US10173092B2 — all directed to plank support exercise apparatus and related methods. The case was prosecuted on the plaintiff’s side by Keener & Associates PC through attorney Kevin John Keener. Domesick, who also appeared to represent himself, moved to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds.
On 31 October 2024, the court granted Domesick’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, closing the case without prejudice after 251 days. A dismissal without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds means the court never evaluated the infringement merits; Aoty Sports retains the right to refile the same claims in a forum where personal jurisdiction over Domesick can be properly established.
The relatively swift resolution — under nine months from filing to closure — is consistent with early-stage procedural dismissals that are resolved before substantive discovery begins. The outcome suggests the plaintiff may not have conducted a sufficient pre-filing jurisdictional analysis regarding Domesick’s contacts with Illinois. What drove the jurisdictional deficiency, and whether Aoty Sports intends to refile in another venue, remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 251 days
251 days — resolved before trial, consistent with pre-discovery dismissal timelines
Dismissed without prejudice: what the jurisdictional ruling means for both parties
Personal jurisdiction dismissal — no merits decided
A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction means the court found it lacked the authority to hear a case against this particular defendant in this forum — not that the infringement claims were meritless. The court must have sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state to exercise jurisdiction. Because the case was dismissed on this procedural basis, none of the four asserted patents were evaluated for validity or infringement scope.
Procedural — no merits rulingAoty Sports can refile — but must establish jurisdiction
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to bring the same claims again. Aoty Sports is not barred from asserting US11491364B2 and its co-asserted patents against Domesick in a different, properly chosen venue. However, the plaintiff will need to conduct a rigorous jurisdictional analysis before refiling — identifying where Domesick’s allegedly infringing activities occurred and whether minimum contacts with that forum can be demonstrated.
Refile right preservedDomesick wins on procedure — infringement question remains open
Domesick’s successful motion to dismiss removes him from this particular proceeding without any finding of infringement or non-infringement. The dismissal without prejudice means he has not obtained a definitive ruling that clears him of liability. If Aoty Sports identifies a proper forum and refiles, Domesick would need to defend on the merits. The outcome does not constitute an adjudication in his favour on the underlying patent claims.
Procedural win onlyPatent enforceability is intact — forum selection is now critical
None of the four asserted patents were invalidated or found unenforceable by this ruling. For competitors in the fitness equipment space, the patents covering plank support exercise apparatus and related methods remain active and enforceable. The case signals that Aoty Sports is willing to litigate its IP portfolio, but underscores the importance of proper jurisdictional groundwork before filing — particularly when targeting individual defendants whose geographic nexus to the chosen forum may be limited.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Aoty Sports, Inc. | Company | Exercise equipment IP holder — holder of US11491364B2 and three related plank support apparatus patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Michael Domesick | Individual | Individual defendant; alleged infringer of plank support exercise apparatus patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin John Keener | Attorney | Counsel for Aoty Sports, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Keener & Associates PC | Law Firm | Representing Aoty Sports, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Harris Domesick | Attorney | Counsel for Michael DomesickSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is a threshold procedural ruling — it does not adjudicate infringement, validity, or claim scope for any of the four asserted patents. The phrase ‘dismissed without prejudice’ is legally significant: it imposes no estoppel on Aoty Sports and leaves the patent claims fully actionable in a forum with proper jurisdiction over Domesick. For the defendant, the ruling is a procedural victory only; no finding of non-infringement was made.
US11491364B2 — plank support exercise apparatus and related methods
The four asserted patents — US11491364B2, US9895573B2, US10286245B2, and US10173092B2 — form a layered portfolio directed to plank support exercise apparatus and related methods. The application numbers span filings from US14/631235 through to US16/368962, suggesting a continuation family developed over several years. This filing progression is consistent with a strategy of broadening and deepening claim coverage as a core product category matures, protecting both apparatus configurations and associated use methods.
For competitors in the fitness equipment sector — particularly those designing core-training devices, bodyweight exercise platforms, or plank-position support tools — this four-patent family represents a meaningful enforcement risk. The portfolio’s breadth across apparatus and method claims means that design-arounds may need to address multiple independent claim sets simultaneously. The fact that Aoty Sports pursued litigation to enforce this portfolio signals an active enforcement posture that product developers and OEM manufacturers in adjacent categories should monitor closely.
Should you run an FTO against US11491364B2 and the Aoty Sports plank apparatus portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing plank support exercise apparatus, core-training boards, or related bodyweight exercise equipment should treat this four-patent family as a priority FTO target. The portfolio covers both apparatus configurations and related methods, meaning that product-level clearance alone may be insufficient — use-case and training method claims should be independently assessed. The active litigation history confirms the patent holder is prepared to enforce.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim sets in US11491364B2, US9895573B2, US10286245B2, and US10173092B2 simultaneously, flagging overlap risk across the full continuation family. Eureka’s claim-chart generation and prior art discovery tools help your IP and R&D teams identify design-around options and build prosecution-ready documentation before product launch — reducing enforcement exposure across the plank exercise apparatus category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11491364B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fitness equipment patent enforcement cases in US district courts
Explore patent infringement actions involving exercise apparatus and fitness equipment IP filed in Illinois and other US district courts — including jurisdictional dismissals and portfolio enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
A procedural dismissal without prejudice leaves four exercise apparatus patents fully intact — and the infringement dispute unresolved.
Jurisdictional due diligence is as critical as claim mapping before filing
This case was terminated before any substantive patent analysis because the plaintiff could not establish personal jurisdiction over an individual defendant in Illinois. IP teams should ensure pre-filing investigations include a thorough review of the defendant’s contacts with the intended forum — not just infringement evidence — particularly when the defendant is an individual rather than a corporate entity.
Four active patents remain enforceable in the plank exercise apparatus space
US11491364B2, US9895573B2, US10286245B2, and US10173092B2 survived this litigation intact. Fitness equipment manufacturers and product developers working in the plank support or core-training apparatus category should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk and consider FTO analysis before commercialising related product designs.
Aoty v Michael — key questions answered
The Illinois Southern District Court dismissed Aoty Sports’ infringement action against Michael Domesick without prejudice on 31 October 2024, after granting Domesick’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. No merits ruling on the four asserted plank exercise apparatus patents was made.
Aoty Sports asserted four US patents: US11491364B2, US9895573B2, US10286245B2, and US10173092B2 — all directed to plank support exercise apparatus and related methods. The patents form a continuation family based on application numbers US14/631235 through US16/368962.
Dismissed without prejudice means the court ended the case on procedural grounds — lack of personal jurisdiction — without ruling on infringement or validity. Aoty Sports retains the right to refile the same claims against Domesick in a court that has proper personal jurisdiction over him. The patents themselves remain enforceable.
The court granted Domesick’s motion to dismiss because Aoty Sports failed to establish that the Illinois Southern District Court had personal jurisdiction over him. This typically means the defendant lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois to be haled into court there. The public record does not specify Domesick’s state of residence or the precise jurisdictional deficiency.
Yes. The dismissal was purely procedural — no validity or infringement findings were made. US11491364B2, US9895573B2, US10286245B2, and US10173092B2 remain issued, enforceable US patents. Companies in the fitness equipment space should conduct FTO analysis against this portfolio before commercialising plank support or related core-training apparatus.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.