JFXD TRX Acq v. Torque Fitness: Three-Patent Strap Exercise Dispute Settled in 305 Days
TRX’s patent holding entity sued Torque Fitness in Minnesota federal court, asserting three patents covering strap-based exercise apparatus, handgrip assemblies, and a dual-stitch flexible strap design. The parties reached a private settlement and stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after approximately ten months, with each side bearing its own costs.
Three-patent TRX exercise equipment dispute resolved by private settlement
On 3 March 2023, JFXD TRX Acq LLC — the patent-holding entity associated with the TRX suspension training brand — filed suit against Torque Fitness LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleged infringement of three patents: US11400334B2 (apparatus, kit, and method for strap-based exercises), US10857413B2 (exercise device with a pair of handgrip assemblies), and design patent USD0831764S (flexible strap with a dual stitch pattern). Together, the asserted portfolio covers both the functional and ornamental dimensions of TRX’s suspension training product line.
The case closed on 2 January 2024 — 305 days after filing — when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), reflecting execution of a private settlement agreement. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither party may relitigate the same disputes. Each side agreed to bear its own legal costs and attorney’s fees, a provision that is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a court-imposed outcome.
A resolution within ten months — before trial or any reported Markman hearing on the record — suggests the parties found commercial common ground relatively early in litigation. The terms of the underlying settlement agreement are not public, leaving open questions about whether a licensing arrangement, product design change by Torque, or simply litigation cost calculus drove the resolution. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future action by TRX on these three patents against Torque Fitness on the same claims.
Filing to dismissal in 305 days
305 days from filing to dismissal — resolved faster than most contested patent infringement actions at district court level
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) following settlement
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — what a stipulated dismissal means
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties and takes effect immediately upon filing — no court order is needed. Because the stipulation here specified ‘with prejudice,’ the dismissal carries the force of a final judgment. Neither JFXD TRX Acq nor Torque Fitness can revive the same claims in any future proceeding. This mechanism is the standard procedural vehicle for documenting a litigation settlement.
Consent dismissal — no court adjudicationPrivate settlement: what the public record reveals — and what it doesn’t
The stipulation references ‘a Settlement Agreement executed by the Parties’ but that agreement is not part of the public court record. Typical settlement structures in patent cases include licensing, royalty payments, product design modifications, or market allocation arrangements. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither party held strong enough leverage to extract a fee award. The specific commercial terms between TRX and Torque Fitness remain undisclosed.
Settlement terms: confidentialThree-patent assertion: utility plus design in one action
TRX asserted two utility patents (covering method and apparatus claims for strap exercise systems and handgrip assemblies) alongside a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a dual-stitch flexible strap. Combining utility and design patents in a single infringement action is a recognised strategy to broaden damages theories and complicate the defendant’s design-around options. The inclusion of a design patent also enables a claim for the infringer’s total profits on covered articles under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Utility + design patent stackMinnesota District Court — home jurisdiction for Torque Fitness
The case was filed in the District of Minnesota, which is also where Torque Fitness is based. Plaintiffs in patent cases typically choose venues perceived as favourable; filing in the defendant’s home district may suggest TRX’s counsel assessed Minnesota as a viable venue, or that jurisdictional nexus with Torque’s operations made it the appropriate choice. The District of Minnesota has an active patent docket and is considered a competent, if not plaintiff-preferred, patent forum.
Defendant’s home districtFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jfxd Trx Acq, LLC | Company | Patent holding entity for TRX suspension training IP — holder of US11400334B2, US10857413B2, and USD0831764SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Torque Fitness, LLC | Company | Torque Fitness LLC — Minnesota-based manufacturer of commercial fitness equipment and accessoriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Holley C. M. Horrell | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Holly Engelmann | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Irfan Hassam-Malani | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Edward Munro | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sybil L. Dunlop | Attorney | Counsel for Jfxd Trx Acq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael S. Sherrill | Attorney | Counsel for Torque Fitness, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Minnesota District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation language — ‘dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims… with each side to bear its own costs’ — is a standard settlement-exit formulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The with-prejudice designation is the legally significant element: it bars JFXD TRX Acq from reasserting US11400334B2, US10857413B2, or USD0831764S against Torque Fitness on the same facts. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests a negotiated balance of leverage rather than a capitulation by either side. No court merits determination was made.
US11400334B2, US10857413B2 & USD0831764S — TRX Suspension Training Patent Portfolio
US11400334B2 (application US17/094487) covers the apparatus, kit, and method for performing strap-based exercises — the core functional architecture of suspension training systems that anchor to a fixed point and allow bodyweight resistance training. US10857413B2 (application US16/204044) protects an exercise device specifically incorporating a pair of handgrip assemblies, addressing the ergonomic interface between user and strap system. USD0831764S (application US29/587147) is an ornamental design patent protecting the visual appearance of a flexible strap featuring a dual stitch pattern — extending IP coverage from function into product aesthetics.
Collectively, this three-patent portfolio reflects a layered IP strategy: utility patents lock down the functional claims of the suspension training category while the design patent protects the distinctive visual identity of the strap itself. For competitors in the functional fitness equipment market — particularly those manufacturing suspension trainers, resistance strap kits, or bodyweight training anchors — all three patents represent active enforcement risks. The portfolio’s breadth across method, apparatus, and ornamental dimensions makes design-around strategies more complex and resource-intensive.
Should your product team run an FTO against the TRX strap patent portfolio?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing suspension trainers, strap-based resistance equipment, or bodyweight exercise kits should treat US11400334B2 and US10857413B2 as high-priority FTO targets. The combination of method and apparatus claims in US11400334B2 means that both the product and its intended use pattern may fall within the claims. USD0831764S adds ornamental risk for products that visually resemble the dual-stitch TRX strap — even where functional differences exist. This litigation demonstrates that JFXD TRX Acq is prepared to enforce all three assets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim scope of US11400334B2, US10857413B2, and USD0831764S — surfacing relevant prior art, claim limitations, and prosecution history disclaimers that define the enforceable boundaries of TRX’s portfolio. Setting up claim change monitoring on these three patents through Eureka ensures your team is alerted to any continuation filings or claim amendments that could extend coverage into adjacent product configurations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11400334B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in strap-based fitness equipment and exercise device IP
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
TRX’s willingness to assert a multi-patent portfolio against a smaller competitor — and settle quickly — points to active enforcement posture in the suspension training category.
TRX is actively enforcing its strap exercise patent portfolio
The filing by JFXD TRX Acq LLC — a dedicated IP acquisition entity — signals a structured enforcement programme around TRX’s suspension training IP. Competitors in the strap-based and bodyweight exercise equipment space should treat US11400334B2 and US10857413B2 as live enforcement risks, not dormant patents. The inclusion of a design patent adds an additional layer of exposure for products that visually resemble the TRX strap configuration.
Early settlement limits public claim construction guidance
Because the case resolved before any reported Markman ruling, there is no public claim construction to anchor third-party FTO analyses. Companies assessing freedom to operate against TRX’s portfolio must work from the patent claims and prosecution history alone. This absence of judicial claim construction increases uncertainty for competitors developing similar suspension training products and reinforces the value of proactive FTO analysis before product launch.
Jfxd v Torque — key questions answered
JFXD TRX Acq LLC asserted three patents: US11400334B2 (apparatus, kit, and method for strap-based exercises), US10857413B2 (exercise device with a pair of handgrip assemblies), and design patent USD0831764S (flexible strap with a dual stitch pattern). All three were filed in a single infringement action in the District of Minnesota on 3 March 2023.
The case was resolved by a private settlement agreement. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 2 January 2024, approximately 305 days after filing. Each side agreed to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. The terms of the settlement agreement itself are not part of the public court record.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. It bars JFXD TRX Acq LLC from filing any future lawsuit against Torque Fitness LLC asserting the same claims under US11400334B2, US10857413B2, or USD0831764S based on the same facts. Torque Fitness similarly cannot relitigate any counterclaims it raised. Neither party can reopen this dispute in any federal court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if all parties who have appeared in the case sign a written stipulation of dismissal. It is the standard procedural mechanism used to formally close a patent case following settlement, as it requires no judicial approval and takes effect upon filing. Its use here reflects a consensual exit agreed to by both TRX and Torque Fitness.
USD0831764S protects the ornamental appearance of a flexible strap with a dual stitch pattern — the visual design of TRX’s strap product rather than its function. Design patents are significant in litigation because under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a successful claimant may recover an infringer’s total profits from the sale of the infringing article, which can substantially exceed a reasonable royalty. Including a design patent alongside utility patents broadens the damages theories available and complicates the defendant’s design-around options.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.