Floriey Industries v. Life Pro Fitness & Bed Bath Beyond — Voluntarily Dismissed
Floriey Industries International filed suit in the Eastern District of New York against Life Pro Fitness and Bed, Bath & Beyond, asserting US6656093B2 covering dumbbell technology. The parties reached a settlement agreement and stipulated to voluntary dismissal after 355 days of litigation, with each side bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Dumbbell patent dispute settled after nearly a year of EDNY litigation
On 28 September 2022, Floriey Industries International Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Life Pro Fitness, LLC and Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. The suit centred on US6656093B2, a patent covering dumbbell fitness equipment. Both a specialist fitness products supplier and a major retail chain were named as defendants, suggesting the alleged infringement spanned manufacture or supply and retail distribution.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and that the dismissal was executed pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific terms of the settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 18 September 2023, approximately 355 days after filing. Resolution within roughly one year of filing — before any publicly recorded trial or claim construction ruling — is consistent with parties reaching a commercial resolution relatively early. What drove the specific terms of the settlement, and whether any ongoing commercial arrangement was agreed between the parties, is not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 355 days
355 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — slightly under the median for EDNY patent cases
US6656093B2 — dumbbell fitness equipment
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing dumbbell or comparable hand-weight fitness products in the U.S. market should assess their exposure to US6656093B2. This case demonstrates that Floriey is willing to pursue enforcement across the supply chain — targeting both the product supplier and the retail distributor simultaneously. The patent was not invalidated in this proceeding, and its claims remain live against parties not named in this action.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), executed pursuant to a settlement agreement, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future re-filing of these specific claims by Floriey against these two defendants. No merits ruling, claim construction order, or damages finding was issued; the underlying validity and scope of US6656093B2 were not adjudicated in this proceeding.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal; the docket order states the dismissal is with prejudice, entered pursuant to a settlement agreement. A with-prejudice dismissal bars Floriey from re-filing the same infringement claims against these defendants on this patent. The court retains no stated jurisdiction to enforce the settlement unless the order provides otherwise — the available record is silent on that point.
Stipulated — with prejudice per docket orderFloriey exits with settlement — claims extinguished against these defendants
Because the docket order records dismissal with prejudice, Floriey cannot re-assert US6656093B2 against Life Pro Fitness or Bed, Bath & Beyond for the same accused dumbbell products in a future action. Whether Floriey received any compensation, licensing arrangement, or other commercial benefit under the settlement agreement is not disclosed in the available record. The patent itself remains in force and enforceable against third parties not party to this action.
Claims against these defendants extinguishedLife Pro Fitness and Bed Bath Beyond — litigation risk resolved
Both defendants avoid a merits adjudication. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice — as stated in the docket order — provides finality: Floriey cannot renew these specific infringement claims against them. Each party bears its own legal costs, meaning no fee-shifting was recorded. Whether defendants agreed to any product modifications, royalty arrangement, or other undertaking under the settlement is not disclosed in the available record.
No merits ruling; own costsUS6656093B2 remains active — risk persists for other dumbbell market players
The voluntary dismissal resolves this action but does not invalidate US6656093B2. Other manufacturers, importers, or retailers of dumbbell products that have not been party to this litigation remain potentially exposed to infringement claims under the patent. The inclusion of a major retailer as a co-defendant signals that Floriey's enforcement strategy may target the full supply chain. Companies sourcing or distributing competing dumbbell products should consider freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Floriey Industries International Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Life Pro Fitness, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony H. Handal | Attorney | Counsel for Floriey Industries International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Anthony H. Handal | Law Firm | Representing Floriey Industries International Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Max Moskowitz. | Attorney | Counsel for Life Pro Fitness, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ostrolenk Faber LLP | Law Firm | Representing Life Pro Fitness, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the fitness equipment patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Floriey Industries' enforcement of US6656093B2 and the broader dumbbell and fitness equipment IP landscape.
Floriey Industries' patent portfolio beyond US6656093B2
Floriey Industries International's willingness to litigate suggests an active IP enforcement posture. Mapping their full U.S. and international patent portfolio can reveal whether US6656093B2 is an isolated asset or part of a broader filing strategy covering dumbbell design, weight adjustment mechanisms, or adjacent fitness equipment categories — signalling future enforcement targets.
Portfolio mappingPatent filing trends in dumbbell and hand-weight equipment
The dumbbell segment has seen innovation in adjustable weight systems, ergonomic grip design, and smart-connected fitness equipment. Tracking recent patent filings in this space can identify which design directions are becoming crowded — and where white space remains for product differentiation ahead of potential IP conflict.
Filing trend analysisLife Pro Fitness patent activity and defensive IP position
Understanding Life Pro Fitness's own patent filing activity — or absence thereof — can reveal how defensively positioned they are against future infringement claims. Companies in the fitness equipment supply chain with thin patent portfolios may be disproportionately exposed to enforcement actions from IP-asserting competitors and NPEs alike.
Defensive IP analysisAdjacent innovation opportunities near dumbbell equipment claims
Around the core claims of US6656093B2, adjacent innovation areas — such as smart weight tracking, modular dumbbell systems, and sustainable materials — may represent lower-density IP zones. Identifying these adjacencies can guide R&D investment toward protectable, commercially viable product features that reduce freedom-to-operate risk from existing patents like US6656093B2.
White space mappingSimilar fitness equipment patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving fitness equipment patents litigated in U.S. district courts — including dumbbell, weight training, and consumer exercise product infringement actions.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
A supply-chain enforcement strategy targeting both supplier and retailer is a pattern worth monitoring across the fitness equipment sector.
Retailer co-defendants signal full supply-chain IP enforcement
Naming Bed, Bath & Beyond alongside the product supplier suggests Floriey's litigation strategy extended liability to the retail distribution layer. Fitness equipment importers and retailers should assess whether their supplier agreements include indemnification for patent infringement claims before stocking competing dumbbell products.
Settlement without disclosed terms keeps US6656093B2 fully armed
Because the settlement terms are confidential and the patent was not invalidated or licensed on record, US6656093B2 remains a live enforcement tool against other market participants. Companies in the dumbbell or adjustable weight equipment space should treat this patent as an active risk and conduct FTO analysis before launching competing products.
Floriey v Life — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed. The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), pursuant to a settlement agreement, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
Floriey Industries asserted US6656093B2 (application number US09/867509), a U.S. patent covering dumbbell fitness equipment. The patent was not invalidated or adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding and remains enforceable against third parties not party to the action.
The available case record does not explain the specific basis for naming Bed, Bath & Beyond. However, in patent infringement actions it is common for plaintiffs to name retailers who sell allegedly infringing products alongside the product supplier. This case is consistent with that supply-chain enforcement pattern, though the precise liability theory asserted against each defendant is not detailed in the publicly available record.
No. The dismissal with prejudice bars Floriey from re-asserting these specific infringement claims against Life Pro Fitness and Bed, Bath & Beyond in a future action. It does not affect the validity or enforceability of US6656093B2 against other parties. The patent remains a live enforcement asset against third parties who were not named defendants in this litigation.
The case was filed on 28 September 2022 and closed on 18 September 2023, a duration of 355 days. The case resolved without a publicly recorded trial, claim construction ruling, or merits adjudication, consistent with early commercial resolution through the parties' settlement agreement.
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.