Fitness belt
Patent standing
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 Mar 2018
- Est. expiry
- 20 Mar 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DELAROSA, YESENIA
- Examiner
- VEYNAR, CARON D
Case record
- Patent involved
- USD813320S
- Application no.
- US29/556024
- Case no.
- 0:25-cv-61895
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Fla.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Florida
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Sep 2025 – 26 May 2026
- Duration
- 246 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Terminated
- Products & marks
- WAIST SNATCHERS waist belts
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 0:25-cv-61895, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart10,000 free credits to start
USD813320S
Assess invalidity risk
- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document.
Break down the claims
Parties of record
Plaintiff
Fmt IP LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Salvatore Fazio
- Firm
- 500law
Defendant
Waist Snatchers LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Gustavo Sardina
- Firm
- H New Media Law
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Salvatore Fazio | Fmt IP LLC | Plaintiff |
| Gustavo Sardina | Waist Snatchers LLC | Defendant |
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.
Compare both portfolios
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim"The purpose of a settlement agreement is to resolve a dispute without the need for court intervention. Where parties settle their cases through a jointly proposed consent judgment and permanent injunction with a district court retaining jurisdiction over the lawsuit indefinitely, it simply replaces the power of contract with the power of a court’s continuing jurisdiction, which in some ways defeats the point of settling the case in the first place (from the perspective of a court’s interest in finality). Still, if the parties wish to reduce their settlement to a consent judgment, they may remedy the deficiencies addressed herein and resubmit the request. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 23] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, the parties may file a Case 0:25-cv-61895-MD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2026 Page 3 of 4 renewed motion remedying the deficiencies identified in this Order, including: (1) inclusion of a factual and legal record showing that the Proposed Judgment is reasonable; and, (2) if the parties intend to request again that this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, the filing of the settlement agreement (the parties have leave to do so under seal for confidentiality purposes) so the undersigned can confirm that it warrants a favorable exercise of judicial discretion. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), adhering to the principle that settlement agreements are a matter of private contract. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1281 (11th Cir. 2012). It is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED for administrative and statistical purposes in light of the parties’ settlement."
Case 0:25-cv-61895 · S.D. Fla. · closed 26 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 0:25-cv-61895?
0:25-cv-61895 is a patent infringement action brought by Fmt IP LLC against Waist Snatchers LLC, filed on 22 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 26 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 0:25-cv-61895?
USD813320S (“Fitness belt”), assigned to FMT IP, LLC, currently active. The record also lists WAIST SNATCHERS waist belts.
How was case 0:25-cv-61895 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: "The purpose of a settlement agreement is to resolve a dispute without the need for court intervention. Where parties settle their cases through a jointly proposed consent judgment and permanent injunction with a district court retaining jurisdiction over the lawsuit indefinitely, it simply replaces the power of contract with the power of a court’s continuing jurisdiction, which in some ways defeats the point of settling the case in the first place (from the perspective of a court’s interest in finality). Still, if the parties wish to reduce their settlement to a consent judgment, they may rem
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 0:25-cv-61895 take?
246 calendar days, from filing on 22 Sep 2025 to closure on 26 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 0:25-cv-61895?
Salvatore Fazio is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Fmt IP. Gustavo Sardina appears for defendant Waist Snatchers.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 0:25-cv-61895 and do not constitute legal advice.
Ask your own question
Browse related dockets
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 0:25-cv-61895 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.