Lightning Fitness v. Precor & Peloton: Treadmill Patent Dispute Ends at 458 Days
Lightning Fitness Systems LLC filed suit in the Delaware District Court against Precor and Peloton Interactive, asserting US9818285B2 against the TRM 445 Treadmill and Peloton Tread. After 458 days of litigation, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice — ending all patent claims permanently.
A Treadmill Patent Dispute That Ended Without Adjudication
Lightning Fitness Systems LLC initiated this infringement action on January 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews. The plaintiff asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,818,285 against Precor Inc.’s TRM 445 Treadmill and Peloton Interactive’s Peloton Tread device — two prominent commercial treadmill products. The case was assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00012 and proceeded through early pleadings before reaching its resolution.
On April 7, 2025, the case concluded via voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Plaintiff Lightning Fitness moved for dismissal after conferring with defendants, who stated they were unopposed. Critically, neither defendant had yet served an answer or response to the plaintiff’s pending Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is permanently barred from reasserting these claims against these defendants on the same patent.
The 458-day duration before a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is notable — suggesting the parties may have reached a commercial resolution not reflected in the public record, or that the plaintiff assessed litigation risks and decided against continuing. The fact that defendants were explicitly unopposed, and that no fee-shifting was sought, is consistent with a negotiated exit. The underlying merits of the ‘285 patent’s infringement allegations were never adjudicated, leaving the patent’s validity and scope untested in this proceeding.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 458 days
458 days — above the median for voluntarily dismissed patent cases in Delaware
Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice: what the outcome means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(2): Court-sanctioned voluntary dismissal with prejudice
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), a plaintiff may seek court-approved dismissal after a defendant has appeared. Here, the plaintiff explicitly requested dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — an important distinction. A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from refiling these specific claims against Precor and Peloton on US9818285B2.
Permanent bar on refilingPlaintiff chose the most final form of exit available
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice differs materially from one without prejudice. Without prejudice preserves the right to refile; with prejudice does not. The plaintiff here affirmatively requested the with-prejudice designation. This is unusual unless a settlement has been reached or the plaintiff has concluded it will not pursue these claims again. The public record does not disclose whether any side payment or licensing arrangement was agreed.
No right to refilePrecor and Peloton exit litigation without an invalidity ruling
While defendants effectively ‘win’ in the sense that all claims against them are permanently dismissed, they did not obtain a ruling that US9818285B2 is invalid or not infringed. This means the patent survives intact and could theoretically be asserted against other parties in future proceedings. Defendants’ decision to remain unopposed to dismissal, and to accept each party bearing its own costs, is consistent with a negotiated resolution.
Patent validity untestedFitness hardware sector: patent risk from ‘285 remains unresolved
Because the case ended without any merits determination, US9818285B2 remains an active, untested patent. Other treadmill and connected fitness hardware manufacturers cannot rely on this case as precedent for invalidity or non-infringement. The resolution — with each party bearing its own costs — is commercially neutral on its face, but the patent’s enforceability against third parties is unchanged.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lightning Fitness Systems, LLC | Company | Fitness technology patent holder — asserting US9818285B2 covering treadmill systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Precor, Inc. | Company | Precor Inc. (commercial treadmill manufacturer) and Peloton Interactive Inc. (connected fitness platform)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Peloton Interactive Incorporated | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig N. Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for Lightning Fitness Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shea N. Palavan | Attorney | Counsel for Lightning Fitness Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sugouri S. Batra | Attorney | Counsel for Lightning Fitness Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing Lightning Fitness Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anand K. Sharma | Attorney | Counsel for Precor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin A. Saidman | Attorney | Counsel for Precor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deanna C. Smiley | Attorney | Counsel for Precor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen Elizabeth Keller | Attorney | Counsel for Precor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lindsey Michelle Gellar | Attorney | Counsel for Precor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing Precor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Andrews | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order, entered under Rule 41(a)(2) at plaintiff’s request with defendants’ consent, operates as a final disposition on the merits by virtue of the with-prejudice designation. Notably, defendants had not yet answered the pending Motion for Leave to Amend — suggesting the dismissal cut short what could have been a substantively contested pleading stage. The explicit ‘each party to bear all costs’ provision forecloses any subsequent fee motion, providing clean closure for all parties while leaving the underlying patent’s validity entirely unaddressed.
US9818285B2 — Fitness treadmill systems and control technology
U.S. Patent No. 9,818,285 (application no. US14/217508) covers technology in the fitness treadmill domain. The patent was asserted against two distinct commercial products — the Precor TRM 445 Treadmill, a professional-grade commercial treadmill, and the Peloton Tread, a connected consumer fitness device. The breadth of assertion across both commercial and consumer treadmill form factors suggests the patent’s claims may be directed at fundamental treadmill control, monitoring, or safety functionality rather than a highly niche feature.
The patent’s survival through this litigation without any validity challenge reaching adjudication means it retains full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. For the connected fitness sector — where companies like Peloton, iFIT, and Nautilus continue to invest heavily in hardware-software integration on treadmill platforms — the ‘285 patent represents a monitoring point. Any competitor developing treadmill control systems, safety mechanisms, or user-interface-driven treadmill management should assess overlap with this patent’s claim scope before product launch.
Should your treadmill or connected fitness product be cleared against US9818285B2?
If your R&D or product team is developing a treadmill, connected fitness platform, or related hardware incorporating control, safety, or monitoring functionality, US9818285B2 warrants direct FTO review. The patent was asserted against both a commercial gym-grade treadmill (Precor TRM 445) and a consumer connected device (Peloton Tread), indicating broad applicability across market segments. The case’s closure without invalidity findings means you cannot rely on this litigation as a clearance signal.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9818285B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface related Lightning Fitness Systems patents that may present additional risk. Given the dismissal without prejudice as to third parties, a structured FTO workflow is the appropriate risk-management step for any treadmill hardware manufacturer operating in or entering the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9818285B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Treadmill & Connected Fitness Patent Cases in Delaware
Explore related patent infringement actions involving fitness hardware and treadmill technology filed in the Delaware District Court and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the connected fitness IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit after 458 days without merits adjudication carries specific strategic signals for the fitness hardware sector.
US9818285B2 remains valid and potentially enforceable against others
No invalidity ruling was issued. No claim construction was reached. For competitors in the treadmill and connected fitness hardware space — including manufacturers of commercial and consumer treadmill platforms — the patent continues to pose a potential enforcement risk. An FTO assessment against the ‘285 patent remains relevant.
With-prejudice + mutual cost-bearing suggests a quiet settlement
Plaintiffs rarely volunteer prejudice unless they have secured something in return or have concluded the case is unwinnable. The mutual cost-bearing provision and defendants’ lack of opposition are both consistent with a private commercial resolution. IP teams at fitness technology companies should treat the absence of public terms as a signal, not an all-clear.
Lightning v Precor — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on April 7, 2025, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Plaintiff Lightning Fitness Systems LLC moved for dismissal; defendants Precor and Peloton were unopposed. Each party bears its own costs. The merits of the patent infringement claims were never adjudicated.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Lightning Fitness from refiling the same claims against Precor and Peloton on US9818285B2. However, it does not invalidate the patent or prevent enforcement against other parties. The patent retains full presumption of validity and could be asserted in future actions against different defendants.
The complaint accused the Peloton Tread device (Peloton Interactive) and the TRM 445 Treadmill (Precor Inc.) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,818,285. The case covered both a connected consumer treadmill and a commercial gym-grade treadmill, suggesting broad claim applicability across treadmill form factors.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason. The combination of a with-prejudice designation, defendants’ explicit non-opposition, mutual cost-bearing, and the 458-day duration before dismissal is consistent with a private commercial resolution or settlement. Alternatively, plaintiff may have reassessed litigation risk after the early pleading stage. No settlement terms have been publicly disclosed.
No. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Lightning Fitness from suing Precor and Peloton again on this patent. US9818285B2 remains valid and enforceable against third parties. Other treadmill and connected fitness hardware manufacturers should conduct an independent FTO analysis against the ‘285 patent before commercializing products in the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.