Avus Holdings v. DMoose Enterprises: Weight Plate Collar Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Avus Holdings, LLC and Avus Design, Inc. brought an infringement action against DMoose Enterprises, Inc. in the Wyoming District Court, asserting US7513856B2 covering a weight plate retention collar. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 248 days, with each party ordered to bear its own attorney fees and costs.
Weight plate collar IP dispute ends without merits ruling in Wyoming
On January 31, 2023, Avus Holdings, LLC and Avus Design, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Wyoming District Court against DMoose Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs asserted US7513856B2, a patent covering a weight plate retention collar, a product category that sits at the intersection of fitness equipment hardware and accessory IP. The case was assigned case number 2:23-cv-00023.
The case closed on October 6, 2023, after 248 days. The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order states that the court approved a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice filed by both parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), ordering the matter dismissed without prejudice and directing each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
A resolution within 248 days — before significant trial-stage expenditure would typically be incurred — suggests the parties reached an accommodation early in the litigation lifecycle, though the nature of any such accommodation is not disclosed in the public record. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the plaintiffs retain the right to refile claims on the asserted patent, which may affect DMoose's ongoing commercial posture with respect to weight plate retention collar products.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 248 days
Days from filing to dismissal — resolved before trial
US7513856B2 — Weight plate retention collar
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing weight plate retention collars — including barbell clamp collars, spring collars, or quick-release collar variants — should consider the current enforceability status of US7513856B2 a live concern. The patent survived this litigation without invalidation, and the plaintiffs retain the right to refile or assert against new defendants. Fitness equipment OEMs, private-label brands, and e-commerce retailers in this product category are all potentially within the enforcement perimeter.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order approves a joint stipulation filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), resulting in dismissal without prejudice. No factual findings, claim constructions, or liability determinations were made. The order's direction that each party bear its own attorney fees and costs reflects the procedural nature of the exit rather than any substantive outcome on the merits of the infringement claims asserted under US7513856B2.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation: what it means
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. It does not require court approval to be effective, though the court here expressly approved it. Crucially, 'without prejudice' means the plaintiffs are not barred from refiling the same claims — the merits of US7513856B2 were never adjudicated.
No merits rulingPlaintiffs retain the right to refile — exposure remains live
Avus Holdings and Avus Design secured a dismissal that leaves their patent fully intact and their infringement claims unchallenged on the merits. US7513856B2 has not been invalidated, limited, or narrowed by this proceeding. The plaintiffs may refile against DMoose or assert the patent against other parties in the weight plate collar market, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private terms not disclosed in the record.
Patent rights preservedDMoose avoids a merits judgment — but litigation risk persists
DMoose Enterprises obtained a dismissal without any court finding of infringement, validity, or damages. Each party bears its own costs, so no financial liability was imposed by the court. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, DMoose does not gain res judicata protection against future assertion of US7513856B2. The company's weight plate retention collar products remain potentially exposed if claims are refiled.
No res judicata protectionFitness equipment makers face unresolved collar patent risk
The without-prejudice dismissal leaves the scope and enforceability of US7513856B2 unresolved for the broader fitness equipment sector. Competitors or distributors selling weight plate retention collar products should note that the patent remains valid on its face and enforceable. The absence of a merits ruling means no claim construction or invalidity determination is available from this case to inform design-around or FTO analysis.
Sector risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Avus Holdings, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Avus Design, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DMoose Enterprises, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin T. Horton | Attorney | Counsel for Avus Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kelley S. Gordon | Attorney | Counsel for Avus Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephenson D. Emery | Attorney | Counsel for Avus Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Marshall Gerstein & Borun, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Avus Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams Porter Day & Neville | Law Firm | Representing Avus Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alex W. Ruge | Attorney | Counsel for DMoose Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Briana Diane Long | Attorney | Counsel for DMoose Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing DMoose Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wyoming District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the weight plate and barbell accessory IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Avus Holdings v. DMoose Enterprises dispute over weight plate retention collar technology.
Avus Holdings and Avus Design: fitness IP filing activity
Avus Holdings and Avus Design's willingness to litigate in federal court over a retention collar patent suggests an active enforcement strategy in the fitness hardware segment. Mapping their full portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or design patents beyond US7513856B2 — can reveal the breadth of their IP position and signal where future enforcement action may be directed.
Enforcement portfolioFiling trends in barbell collar and weight plate retention technology
The weight plate retention collar is a mechanical niche with ongoing innovation in quick-release mechanisms, materials (aluminium vs. composite), and locking geometry. Tracking patent filing trends in this segment can identify emerging assignees, whitespace in clamping mechanism design, and technology clusters where competitor activity is intensifying — relevant for both product development and FTO planning.
Collar mechanism innovationDMoose Enterprises' patent position in the fitness accessories market
DMoose Enterprises operates in a competitive fitness accessories market where proprietary product design is a commercial differentiator. Assessing whether DMoose holds its own utility or design patents in the barbell accessory category — and whether any overlap with Avus's collar claims — can inform both their defensive posture and their capacity to design around asserted claims.
Defensive IP mappingAdjacent innovation space near weight plate collar technology
Beyond the specific retention collar geometry covered by US7513856B2, adjacent areas — including smart load-sensing collars, tool-free micro-adjustment systems, and composite material formulations for weight-bearing accessories — appear less densely patented. R&D teams evaluating next-generation barbell accessories may find protectable whitespace in these adjacent technical domains.
Adjacent whitespaceSimilar patent infringement cases: fitness and sports equipment hardware
Explore related patent infringement actions in the fitness and sports equipment space, including barbell accessory and weight plate collar disputes litigated in US district courts.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
An early without-prejudice exit on a niche fitness hardware patent leaves enforcement options open and competitor risk unresolved.
Without-prejudice exit preserves plaintiff's full enforcement arsenal
Avus Holdings and Avus Design walk away from this case with US7513856B2 unscathed — no invalidity ruling, no claim narrowing, no adverse court finding. Any fitness equipment company selling weight plate retention collars should treat this patent as active enforcement risk, not a resolved dispute.
Each-side-bears-own-costs structure is worth watching
The court's cost allocation — each party bears its own attorney fees — is consistent with a neutral exit rather than a clear winner. It offers no signal about the relative strength of the underlying infringement or invalidity positions, which remain untested by the record in this case.
Avus v DMoose — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on October 6, 2023, pursuant to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court ordered each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. No merits determination was made on the infringement claims asserted under US7513856B2.
The plaintiffs asserted US7513856B2 (application number US11/803582), a patent covering a weight plate retention collar. This was the sole patent identified in the case record. The patent's claims were not construed or adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding.
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiffs from refiling the same infringement claims in the future. DMoose does not gain res judicata or claim preclusion protection from this dismissal. The company's weight plate retention collar products remain potentially subject to a future infringement action based on US7513856B2, subject to applicable limitations periods and any private terms not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. A without-prejudice dismissal expressly preserves the plaintiff's right to refile. This proceeding did not result in any ruling that would bar Avus Holdings or Avus Design from reasserting US7513856B2 against DMoose or other defendants in the weight plate collar market. The applicable refiling window is governed by the patent damages statute and any undisclosed private terms.
Based on the available record, yes. The patent was not invalidated, narrowed, or otherwise limited by any court ruling in this proceeding. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves the patent's enforceability status unchanged from the plaintiffs' perspective. Companies operating in the weight plate retention collar segment should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset until a merits ruling or USPTO action indicates otherwise.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.