Inzer Advance Designs, Inc. v. April Mathis
Infringement action filed 18 Mar 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and closed 18 Mar 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- USD848558SUS9895594B2
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-00171
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Ohio
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Ohio
- Chief judge
- Jeffery P. Hopkins
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Mar 2025 – 18 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 365 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Elbow Wraps (Pair)- 2 Meters · True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Knee Wraps (Pair)- 3 Meters · True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Wrist Wraps (Pair) – 36”
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
Weightlifting wrap
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 14 May 2019
- Est. expiry
- 14 May 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- INZER, JOHN
- Prosecution counsel
- DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
- Examiner
- HARVEY, RYAN
Weightlifting wrap
A weightlifting wrap is provided which prevents slippage, increases rebound potential, allows simpler application, and provides greater stability. The wrap includes a stretchable material having exposed elongate pliable strand members on one outer surface of the wrap. The exposed pliable strand members are arranged in an offset lattice configuration. The exposed pliable strand members may have a coefficient of friction sufficient to grip the previous layer of wrap.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 Feb 2018
- Earliest priority
- 21 Apr 2015
- Est. expiry
- 28 Dec 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- INZER, JOHN
- Classification
- A63B71/00A63B71/12A63B23/04A63B21/072
- Prosecution counsel
- DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
- Examiner
- CROW, STEPHEN R
Parties of record
Inzer Advance Designs, Inc.
- Core tech
- A63B71/00A63B71/12A63B23/04A63B21/072
- Counsel
- Christopher K. VanDeusen · Oleg Khariton
- Firm
- Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
April Mathis
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- April Mathis
- Firm
- 1850 Union Hill Rd.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher K. VanDeusen | Inzer Advance Designs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Oleg Khariton | Inzer Advance Designs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| April Mathis | April Mathis | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties to this action jointly stipulate to the dismissal of this case (including all counter-claims) with prejudice.”
Case 1:25-cv-00171 · S.D. Ohio · closed 18 March 2026
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 1:25-cv-00171?
1:25-cv-00171 is a patent infringement action brought by Inzer Advance Designs, Inc. against April Mathis, filed on 18 Mar 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The case closed on 18 March 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 1:25-cv-00171?
USD848558S (“Weightlifting wrap”), assigned to INZER ADVANCE DESIGNS, INC., currently active; US9895594B2 (“Weightlifting wrap”), assigned to INZER ADVANCE DESIGNS, INC., currently active. The record also lists True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Elbow Wraps (Pair)- 2 Meters, True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Knee Wraps (Pair)- 3 Meters and True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Wrist Wraps (Pair) – 36”.
How was case 1:25-cv-00171 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties to this action jointly stipulate to the dismissal of this case (including all counter-claims) with prejudice.”
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 1:25-cv-00171 take?
365 calendar days, from filing on 18 Mar 2025 to closure on 18 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-00171?
Chief Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins presided. Christopher K. VanDeusen and Oleg Khariton are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Inzer Advance Designs. April Mathis appears for defendant April Mathis.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-00171 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.