Bin Liu v. Schedule A Defendants — Fitness Frame Patent Action Dismissed in 6 Days
Patent holder Bin Liu filed suit against 24 online fitness equipment sellers in Virginia Eastern District Court asserting US11911650B1, covering a multifunctional fitness frame with reversible pedal structure. The case closed just 6 days after filing via voluntary dismissal, before any defendant answered or moved for summary judgment.
A six-day Schedule A fitness patent action that never reached the defendants
On December 9, 2025, plaintiff Bin Liu, represented by DNL Zito Castellano PLLC, filed a patent infringement complaint in the Virginia Eastern District Court asserting US11911650B1 against a group of 24 unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A — a typical e-commerce enforcement vehicle targeting online marketplace sellers. The patent covers a multifunctional fitness frame with a reversible pedal structure, a product category heavily represented by third-party sellers on platforms such as Amazon.
Just six days after filing, on December 15, 2025, Liu voluntarily dismissed the action against all 24 named defendants — including Goimu, EVOLPOW, EonfitOmni, GAOMON, and snode, among others. The dismissal came before any defendant had answered the complaint or filed a motion for summary judgment. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal, but the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
A six-day lifecycle is highly atypical even for Schedule A enforcement actions, which are themselves known for rapid procedural movement. The speed suggests the dismissal may have been driven by early settlement, licensing discussions, strategic recalibration, or a procedural issue identified shortly after filing — though none of these can be confirmed from the public record. The silence on prejudice terms leaves open the question of whether Liu retains the right to refile against any of these defendants.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 6 days
Closed in 6 days — among the fastest district court resolutions on record
Voluntarily dismissed: what the public record does and does not tell us
Voluntary dismissal before any defendant appeared
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. That condition is met here — the record confirms no defendant answered or moved. The dismissal is procedurally straightforward, but the absence of a prejudice designation is significant for assessing future litigation risk.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
When a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 does not specify prejudice terms, the default under federal rules is dismissal without prejudice — meaning the plaintiff could potentially refile. However, the public docket does not expressly state either designation here. Practitioners should not assume either outcome without reviewing the filed notice of dismissal directly. The distinction materially affects each defendant’s ongoing exposure to this patent.
Prejudice terms unconfirmed24 defendants exit without a merits ruling
All 24 named Schedule A defendants — including Goimu, EVOLPOW, GAOMON, and snode — are dismissed from this specific action without any court finding on infringement or validity of US11911650B1. No defendant incurred a judgment. However, without a confirmed with-prejudice dismissal, continued sale of products resembling the claimed fitness frame design may carry residual risk of a refiled action.
No merits adjudicationSix-day cases signal pre-suit leverage dynamics
Schedule A actions filed against multiple e-commerce sellers are frequently used to obtain emergency injunctive relief or to prompt rapid licensing settlements. A dismissal within six days — before defendants are even served in many cases — is consistent with a plaintiff achieving a commercial objective quickly (e.g., platform takedown or licensing agreement) or identifying a filing issue. R&D and product teams selling fitness equipment online should treat this as a signal to audit exposure to US11911650B1.
E-commerce patent enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bin Liu | Individual | Patent holder asserting US11911650B1 — multifunctional fitness frame inventorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 24 unincorporated online fitness equipment sellers identified on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kendal Meredith Sheets | Attorney | Counsel for Bin LiuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito Castellano PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bin LiuSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice confirms that all 24 defendants are released from this specific action and that none had answered or moved for summary judgment at the time of dismissal. The phrasing does not include an express prejudice designation. Under Rule 41 defaults, this typically operates as a dismissal without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff’s ability to refile — but practitioners should verify the filed notice directly before advising clients on residual exposure.
US11911650B1 — Multifunctional fitness frame with reversible pedal structure
US11911650B1 (application no. US18/212728) is a US utility patent protecting a multifunctional fitness frame incorporating a reversible pedal structure. The patent was granted to Bin Liu and covers a product in the growing home and modular gym equipment category. The reversible pedal mechanism suggests a design intended to enable multiple exercise configurations — a feature increasingly central to compact, multifunctional home fitness products competing in the e-commerce marketplace.
In a crowded market for home fitness equipment sold on Amazon and similar platforms, a patent covering a specific structural feature such as a reversible pedal arrangement can provide meaningful exclusivity if claim scope is broad enough to cover functionally equivalent designs. The Schedule A enforcement model employed here — filing against dozens of marketplace sellers simultaneously — is a well-established strategy for IP holders in this category. Competitors and OEM suppliers should assess whether their current or planned fitness frame designs intersect with the claims of US11911650B1.
Should your fitness frame product be cleared against US11911650B1?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling multifunctional fitness frames — particularly those featuring reversible, convertible, or multi-mode pedal structures — should assess freedom to operate against US11911650B1. This is especially urgent for brands selling through Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms, where Schedule A enforcement actions can result in rapid listing removals and account holds before any court ruling on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US11911650B1, identify prior art that may limit claim scope, surface related continuation or divisional filings by the same inventor, and flag other active assertions. Use Eureka to run a comprehensive FTO analysis before your product appears on the next Schedule A defendant list.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11911650B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fitness equipment patent Schedule A cases in federal district courts
Browse related patent infringement Schedule A actions involving fitness equipment and modular home gym products filed in US federal district courts.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
Ultra-fast Schedule A dismissals rarely mean the dispute is resolved — they often mark the opening move in a broader enforcement campaign.
Schedule A tactics put online fitness sellers on notice
Bin Liu’s use of Schedule A procedure against 24 e-commerce sellers targeting fitness frames is consistent with a systematic enforcement strategy. Online marketplace sellers of multifunctional or modular fitness frames should review their product designs against US11911650B1 claims, particularly around reversible pedal structures, regardless of whether they appear on this specific Schedule A.
Six-day dismissals do not mean the patent risk has passed
A voluntary dismissal before defendant appearance — especially one silent on prejudice — should not be read as a withdrawal of enforcement intent. Patent holders in the fitness equipment space frequently use rapid filings to test enforcement readiness, secure platform removals, or initiate licensing conversations. Defendants and adjacent sellers should monitor US11911650B1 for subsequent filings.
Liu v Unincorporated — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff Bin Liu on December 15, 2025, six days after filing. All 24 Schedule A defendants were dismissed before any answered or filed a motion. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The asserted patent is US11911650B1, filed under application number US18/212728, covering a multifunctional fitness frame with a reversible pedal structure. The patent is held by individual inventor Bin Liu and covers a product in the home and modular fitness equipment category.
The 24 defendants are unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A, named as: Goimu, EVOLPOW, EonfitOmni, Garveelife, RUNREELY, JELENS, YOLEO, FEIERDUN, Towallmark, Powercom Fitness, Hipicute, HOMLANE, OutdoorVibe, DONOW, GAOMON, HarmonyHealth, Jenser, FAGUS H, HOMSURE, GlowSol, Temtum, Ernst Int (Royal Fitness), KUNRAM, and snode.
Under Federal Rule 41, a voluntary dismissal before the defendant answers is typically without prejudice by default, allowing refiling. However, the public record here does not expressly state the prejudice designation. Defendants should review the filed notice of dismissal directly. A second dismissal against the same defendants would typically operate as an adjudication on the merits.
A Schedule A case is a patent or trademark infringement action filed against multiple defendants — typically anonymous online marketplace sellers — whose identities are listed on a confidential schedule attached to the complaint. These actions are common in e-commerce IP enforcement and are often paired with requests for temporary restraining orders to freeze seller accounts or remove listings before defendants are notified.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.