Implus Footcare, LLC v. Dayline Innovations, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 16 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and closed 6 Jan 2023, with US9855453B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9855453B2
- Application no.
- US15/094826
- Case no.
- 3:22-cv-00688
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 16 May 2022 – 6 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 235 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Exercise device and method
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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 chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Exercise device and method
The present invention provides an exercise device comprising: an outer ring; an inner ring located within the outer ring; and a plurality of spokes connecting the inner ring and the outer ring. A method of use is also provided.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 2 Jan 2018
- Est. expiry
- 9 Apr 2035
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DAY, JASON WILLIAM
- Classification
- A63B5/22
- Prosecution counsel
- SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
- Examiner
- THANH, LOAN H
Parties of record
Implus Footcare, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brian Livedalen · Christopher Scott Marchese · Joshua Parker Carrigan
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson LLP
Dayline Innovations, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Cabrach John Connor · Ryan Ephraim Hatch · Stephen M. Lobbin
- Firm
- Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC, Hatch Law PC, SML Avvocati PC
- Also named
- Dick
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Livedalen | Implus Footcare, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Christopher Scott Marchese | Implus Footcare, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Joshua Parker Carrigan | Implus Footcare, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Cabrach John Connor | Dayline Innovations, Inc. | Defendant |
| Ryan Ephraim Hatch | Dayline Innovations, Inc. | Defendant |
| Stephen M. Lobbin | Dayline Innovations, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On this day, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Dayline Innovations Inc. (“Dayline”), Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Implus Footcare, LLC (“Implus”), and Defendant Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”) (collectively, “the Parties”) notified the Court that they have resolved Dayline’s claims for relief against Implus and DSG and Implus and DSG’s claims and/or counterclaims for relief against Dayline. Dayline, Implus, and DSG have, therefore, requested that the Court dismiss Dayline’s claims for relief against Implus and DSG with prejudice and Implus and DSG’s claims and counterclaims for relief against Dayline with prejudice, with all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses taxed against the party incurring same. The Court having considered this request, is of the opinion that their request for dismissal should be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dayline’s claims for relief against Implus and DSG are dismissed with prejudice and Implus and DSG’s claims and counterclaims for relief against Dayline are dismissed with prejudice in case numbers 3:22-cv-00688-RBM-AHG and No. 3:22-cv-1028-RBM-AHG, with all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. IT IS SO ORDERED”
Case 3:22-cv-00688 · S.D. Cal. · closed 6 January 2023
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 3:22-cv-00688?
3:22-cv-00688 is a patent infringement action brought by Implus Footcare, LLC against Dayline Innovations, Inc., filed on 16 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case closed on 6 January 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:22-cv-00688?
US9855453B2 (“Exercise device and method”), assigned to DTC RETAIL LLC, currently active. The record also lists Exercise device and method.
How was case 3:22-cv-00688 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “On this day, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Dayline Innovations Inc. (“Dayline”), Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Implus Footcare, LLC (“Implus”), and Defendant Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”) (collectively, “the Parties”) notified the Court that they have resolved Dayline’s claims for relief against Implus and DSG and Implus and DSG’s claims and/or counterclaims for relief against Dayline. Dayline, Implus, and DSG have, therefore, requested that the Court dismiss Dayline’s claims for relief against Implus and DSG with prejudice and Implus and DSG’s claims and counterclaims for re
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 3:22-cv-00688 take?
235 calendar days, from filing on 16 May 2022 to closure on 6 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-00688?
Brian Livedalen, Christopher Scott Marchese and Joshua Parker Carrigan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Implus Footcare. Cabrach John Connor, Ryan Ephraim Hatch and Stephen M. Lobbin appear for defendant Dayline Innovations.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-00688 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.