LifeCore Fitness v. Woodway USA: Cross-Appeal Dismissed at Federal Circuit
LifeCore Fitness, LLC (dba Assault Fitness) voluntarily dismissed its cross-appeal against Woodway USA over US10561884B2 — a patent covering manual treadmill technology — at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed in 150 days with each side bearing its own costs, while a related appeal (No. 2025-1323) remains active before the same merits panel.
Assault Fitness drops cross-appeal over manual treadmill patent invalidity
LifeCore Fitness, LLC, operating as Assault Fitness, brought cross-appeal No. 2025-1345 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 6, 2025, challenging proceedings related to the patentability and validity of US10561884B2. That patent, directed to a manual treadmill and methods of operating the same, sits at the commercial heart of competition between Assault Fitness and Woodway USA — two prominent players in the high-performance fitness equipment market.
On June 5, 2025 — just 150 days after filing — LifeCore moved to voluntarily dismiss the cross-appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and the motion was unopposed. The Federal Circuit granted the dismissal and ordered that each side bear its own costs as to this appeal. Critically, no merits ruling was issued: the court made no determination on the validity or patentability of US10561884B2 in this proceeding.
The swift resolution of the cross-appeal, without costs awarded, is consistent with a negotiated agreement between the parties rather than a unilateral retreat. Notably, the Federal Circuit’s order preserves and redirects attention to the companion appeal No. 2025-1323, which remains pending before the same merits panel. The public record is silent on what commercial considerations or settlement discussions, if any, influenced LifeCore’s decision to withdraw — leaving the substantive patent validity question unresolved in this docket.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 150 days
150-day appellate lifespan — faster than the median Federal Circuit appeal
Cross-appeal voluntarily dismissed: what the FRAP 42(b) order means
FRAP 42(b) dismissal: no merits adjudication
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows a party to voluntarily dismiss an appeal upon motion and with the court’s approval. Because the motion here was unopposed, the Federal Circuit dismissed Appeal No. 2025-1345 without examining the underlying validity of US10561884B2. This is a procedural exit — not a substantive ruling on patentability — meaning neither party can cite this order as precedent on the patent’s validity.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingPublic record is silent on prejudice terms
The order dismisses Appeal No. 2025-1345 without expressly specifying whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice to re-raising the same arguments. The public record — as reflected in the Federal Circuit’s order — does not settle this point. Whether LifeCore retains the ability to revive equivalent arguments in the companion appeal (No. 2025-1323) or in future proceedings will depend on the scope of any underlying agreement between the parties.
Prejudice terms: not specified in public recordLifeCore exits this appeal; companion case continues
By withdrawing the cross-appeal, LifeCore Fitness foregoes any appellate ruling it sought in Appeal No. 2025-1345. However, the Federal Circuit’s order expressly preserves Appeal No. 2025-1323 before the same merits panel, suggesting LifeCore’s broader dispute with Woodway USA is not fully resolved. The cost-neutral outcome — each side bearing its own costs — is consistent with a strategic narrowing of the appellate front rather than a full capitulation.
Strategic withdrawal, not full surrenderWoodway avoids adverse cross-appeal ruling — for now
Woodway USA secured dismissal of the cross-appeal without contest and without being ordered to pay costs. The unopposed nature of the motion suggests Woodway agreed to the withdrawal — possibly as part of a broader arrangement. Yet with Appeal No. 2025-1323 still pending before the Federal Circuit, Woodway’s exposure to an adverse ruling on manual treadmill patent validity has not been fully eliminated. The merits contest over US10561884B2 may yet continue.
Cost-neutral win, merits risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LIFECORE FITNESS, LLC, dba Assault Fitness | Company | High-performance fitness equipment brand — holder of US10561884B2 (manual treadmill)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Woodway USA | Individual | Premium treadmill manufacturer Woodway USA, represented by Foley & Lardner, LLPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew B. Turner | Attorney | Counsel for LIFECORE FITNESS, LLC, dba Assault FitnessSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brooks Kushman PC | Law Firm | Representing LIFECORE FITNESS, LLC, dba Assault FitnessSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kadie M. Jelenchick | Attorney | Counsel for Woodway USASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Woodway USASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is narrow and procedural: it grants LifeCore’s unopposed FRAP 42(b) motion and dismisses Appeal No. 2025-1345 without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge. The cost-allocation language — each side bears its own costs — reflects a mutual agreement rather than a judicial sanction. Crucially, the order’s direction to transmit a copy to the merits panel for Appeal No. 2025-1323 signals that the underlying validity dispute over US10561884B2 is not extinguished; it has merely been consolidated into the companion appeal.
US10561884B2 — Manual treadmill and methods of operating the same
US10561884B2 (application no. US15/958339) protects a manual — or curved, self-powered — treadmill and the methods by which it is operated. This category of training equipment, popularised by brands like Assault Fitness, delivers high-intensity interval training without an electric motor, relying instead on the user’s own force to drive the belt. The patent’s claim to both the apparatus and operational methods creates a broad enforcement perimeter that can cover both the physical product and how fitness facilities or competitors instruct users to operate equivalent machines.
In the competitive manual treadmill market — where Assault Fitness and Woodway USA both position premium products for commercial gyms and elite sports facilities — control over foundational apparatus and method claims carries significant commercial leverage. An invalidity challenge of the kind underlying this Federal Circuit proceeding typically signals that a competitor believes the patent is blocking legitimate product design space. The outcome of the companion appeal (No. 2025-1323) will likely determine whether US10561884B2 survives as an enforceable barrier to entry in this growing market segment.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10561884B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing manual or curved treadmills — or developing software and training protocols for such equipment — should assess its exposure to US10561884B2. The patent’s dual coverage of apparatus and operating methods means freedom-to-operate risk is not limited to hardware design alone; training app developers, gym equipment OEMs, and white-label manufacturers may all fall within the patent’s potential reach, particularly if the companion Federal Circuit appeal affirms the patent’s validity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim landscape of US10561884B2, identify related continuations and divisionals in the LifeCore/Assault Fitness portfolio, and surface prior art that may support design-around strategies. With Appeal No. 2025-1323 still pending, now is the optimal time to conduct a proactive FTO review — before a Federal Circuit ruling potentially strengthens the patent’s enforceability and narrows design freedom in the manual treadmill space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10561884B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving fitness equipment patent validity
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving manual treadmill, fitness equipment, and exercise apparatus patent validity and cancellation actions similar to LifeCore v. Woodway USA.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit cross-appeal with a live companion case is a classic pressure-reduction tactic — the patent fight is ongoing.
Voluntary dismissal ≠ resolution: watch Appeal No. 2025-1323
The Federal Circuit’s order explicitly redirects the merits panel to companion appeal No. 2025-1323. IP professionals monitoring this dispute should treat the dismissal of the cross-appeal as a narrowing of the litigation front, not its conclusion. The patentability of US10561884B2 remains live at the Federal Circuit level.
Cost-neutral exits often signal a deal in the background
When a cross-appeal is voluntarily dismissed unopposed and costs are split by agreement, it typically suggests the parties reached at least a partial accommodation. This pattern is common where licensing terms or product design changes are being negotiated concurrently with appellate proceedings in the fitness equipment sector.
LIFECORE v Woodway — key questions answered
LifeCore Fitness, LLC (dba Assault Fitness) voluntarily dismissed its cross-appeal (No. 2025-1345) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 5, 2025, under FRAP 42(b). The motion was unopposed. No merits ruling was issued on the validity of US10561884B2. Each side bears its own costs. A companion appeal, No. 2025-1323, remains pending before the same Federal Circuit merits panel.
US10561884B2 (application US15/958339) covers a manual treadmill and methods of operating the same. In the context of the LifeCore v. Woodway USA dispute, the patent is asserted in an invalidity/cancellation action, suggesting Woodway USA challenged whether the patent’s claims are validly granted over the prior art. The patent’s dual coverage of apparatus and operating methods gives it broad potential scope in the manual and curved treadmill market.
No. The Federal Circuit’s dismissal order expressly preserves companion appeal No. 2025-1323 before the same merits panel. The dismissal of the cross-appeal is a procedural exit under FRAP 42(b) and does not constitute a merits ruling on the validity or enforceability of US10561884B2. The substantive patent dispute remains live.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows a party to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by motion, subject to court approval. Because the motion here was unopposed, the Federal Circuit granted it without ruling on the underlying patentability questions. A FRAP 42(b) dismissal carries no preclusive merits effect on the patent’s validity — it simply ends that specific appeal proceeding without adjudication.
LifeCore Fitness, LLC was represented by attorney Andrew B. Turner of Brooks Kushman PC. Woodway USA was represented by attorney Kadie M. Jelenchick of Foley & Lardner, LLP. The cost-neutral, unopposed dismissal suggests both law firms negotiated the withdrawal terms collaboratively.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.