Performance Solutions v. Implus Footcare: 11-Patent Massage Device Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Performance Solutions, LLC brought an 11-patent infringement action against Implus Footcare, LLC in Massachusetts federal court targeting the Perfect Fitness Massage line and TriggerPoint Grid STK rollers. After 131 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving all claims legally alive for potential re-filing.
11-Patent Muscle Recovery Suit Ends Before Merits Are Tested
Performance Solutions, LLC filed Case No. 1:25-cv-12152 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 31, 2025, asserting infringement of eleven utility patents spanning massage roller and muscle recovery device technology. The defendant, Implus Footcare, LLC — maker of the TriggerPoint Grid STK (Regular Firm and Extra Firm) and the Perfect Fitness Massage product — was identified as the accused infringer. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton was assigned to the case, with Nixon Peabody LLP appearing for the plaintiff.
On December 9, 2025, Performance Solutions filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims against Implus Footcare without prejudice. Because this notice was filed before any answer or motion for summary judgment was served by the defendant, the dismissal is self-executing and requires no court order. Critically, a ‘without prejudice’ dismissal does not extinguish the underlying claims — Performance Solutions retains the right to re-file against Implus or any other party on any or all of the eleven patents.
The 131-day lifecycle suggests the case resolved — or was strategically paused — before substantive litigation costs escalated. The absence of any defendant law firm on the docket and the use of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (which is only available before an answer is filed) suggests Implus may not have formally appeared, or the parties reached an informal accommodation. Whether this reflects a licensing negotiation, a decision to re-file in a different venue, or a strategic withdrawal is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 131 days
131 days — resolved before most patent cases reach the claim construction phase
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a plaintiff’s self-executing exit
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal takes effect immediately on filing. No judicial approval is needed, and no merits determination is made. This is the earliest and lowest-cost exit available to a federal plaintiff, and it preserves maximum flexibility.
No court order requiredThe public record confirms: dismissed without prejudice
The verdict text explicitly states ‘voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice.’ This is legally significant: a dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar Performance Solutions from re-asserting these claims against Implus. A without-prejudice dismissal leaves all eleven patent claims fully intact. Performance Solutions can re-file in any competent court at any time within the applicable limitations period. No inference of weakness on the merits should be drawn from this procedural step alone.
Claims remain liveImplus exits this action — but faces no merits shield
Implus Footcare obtains a dismissal of the current action, but receives no preclusive finding in its favour. There is no adjudication of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability of any of the eleven asserted patents. Implus cannot invoke res judicata or collateral estoppel from this case in any future proceeding. The TriggerPoint and Perfect Fitness product lines remain exposed to re-filed claims, and Implus should treat the patent landscape around these eleven patents as actively monitored.
No preclusive protection gainedEleven patents still active — sector risk not resolved
With eleven patents covering a range of massage roller and muscle recovery device technologies, the IP portfolio at issue is broad. Competitors and OEM suppliers across the foam roller, percussion massage, and rehabilitation device segment should note that this dismissal resolves nothing substantively. Any party manufacturing or distributing products that overlap with these patents faces the same exposure as before. A licensing approach, freedom-to-operate clearance, or IPR petition remains the only durable risk mitigation strategy.
Portfolio risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Performance Solutions, LLC | Company | Muscle recovery device IP licensor — holder of US10265238B2 and 10 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Implus Footcare, LLC | Company | Fitness accessories maker — producer of TriggerPoint Grid STK rollers and Perfect Fitness Massage productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Juliet J. DeFrancisco | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nixon Peabody LLP | Law Firm | Representing Performance Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton | Judge | Massachusetts District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ which are the two most consequential legal facts in this record. The without-prejudice qualifier means no claim preclusion attaches — Performance Solutions may re-file any or all of the eleven patent claims against Implus or any other party. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) mechanism confirms no answer had been served, meaning the case is resolved at its earliest procedural stage. No claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no infringement determination was reached. For both parties, the substantive patent dispute is deferred, not decided.
US10265238B2 — Massage Roller and Muscle Recovery Device Portfolio
The lead asserted patent, US10265238B2, is one of eleven utility patents covering massage roller and muscle recovery device technology asserted by Performance Solutions, LLC. The portfolio spans application numbers ranging from US11/827361 through US17/086691, suggesting a family of inventions developed and prosecuted over more than a decade. The technical domain encompasses the design, construction, and functional features of foam rollers, massage sticks, and related soft-tissue recovery tools — a product category that has grown significantly in the rehabilitation, physiotherapy, and consumer fitness markets.
The breadth of this eleven-patent portfolio signals that Performance Solutions holds layered IP coverage across multiple aspects of massage and recovery device technology — likely including structural configurations, surface textures, material compositions, and use methods. For competitors and OEM manufacturers in the foam roller, percussion therapy, and rehabilitation accessory space, this portfolio represents a material commercial risk. The fact that three patents appear to have been filed after 2019 suggests active prosecution, meaning claim scope may continue to expand through continuation applications. Implus Footcare’s TriggerPoint and Perfect Fitness lines were identified as accused products, placing the entire structured massage roller segment on notice.
Should you run an FTO against US10265238B2 and the Performance Solutions portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing massage rollers, foam recovery sticks, or structured soft-tissue therapy devices should treat this eleven-patent portfolio as a live clearance obligation. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not represent a cleared path — it represents a temporary pause by a plaintiff who retains full rights to re-file. Product teams working on recovery rollers, massage sticks, or any device overlapping with the TriggerPoint Grid STK or Perfect Fitness Massage form factors should prioritise clearance before next product launch or distribution agreement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map all eleven asserted patents — and their likely continuation families — against current product designs in a fraction of the time of traditional clearance work. Eureka can identify claim-level overlap, flag pending continuation applications that may expand coverage, and surface prior art that could support an IPR petition if clearance is not achievable by design-around. For a portfolio of this size, automated claim mapping across the full family is the most efficient first step.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10265238B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Massage & Recovery Device Infringement in Federal Courts
Explore comparable infringement actions involving massage roller, foam recovery, and muscle therapy device patents filed in Massachusetts and other federal district courts.
What this case signals for the muscle recovery device IP landscape
An 11-patent portfolio deployed and then withdrawn without prejudice is a pattern that warrants close monitoring across the fitness device sector.
Without-prejudice dismissals are often a tactical pause, not an end
When a plaintiff with a large patent portfolio voluntarily dismisses before the defendant even answers, it frequently signals one of three things: a licensing discussion is underway, the plaintiff is preparing to re-file with a stronger claim set, or it is testing venue options. Companies in the massage and recovery device space should not treat this dismissal as a cleared path.
Eleven asserted patents signals a broad assertion strategy
Asserting eleven patents against a single defendant in a first filing is characteristic of a plaintiff with a licensing-oriented portfolio strategy. It maximises negotiating leverage and makes invalidity challenges expensive. Competitors should audit their product lines against the full portfolio — US10265238B2, US9345921B2, US7918774B2, US9656112B2, US10695260B2, US8002682B2, US9539167B2, US10278890B2, US12201571B2, US12133825B2, and US12193986B2 — before the portfolio is re-deployed.
Performance v Implus — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means Performance Solutions, LLC chose to end the current action against Implus Footcare, LLC without any court ruling on the merits. Crucially, ‘without prejudice’ means all eleven patent infringement claims remain legally alive. Performance Solutions can re-file against Implus or any other party at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. No preclusion, estoppel, or invalidity finding was made.
Performance Solutions asserted eleven US utility patents: US10265238B2, US9345921B2, US7918774B2, US9656112B2, US10695260B2, US8002682B2, US9539167B2, US10278890B2, US12201571B2, US12133825B2, and US12193986B2. All relate to massage roller and muscle recovery device technology. The portfolio spans applications filed over more than a decade, with at least three patents bearing post-2019 application numbers suggesting active prosecution.
The accused products identified in the case are the Perfect Fitness Massage product, the TriggerPoint Grid STK (Extra Firm), and the TriggerPoint Grid STK (Regular Firm). These are structured foam roller and massage stick products marketed for muscle recovery and soft-tissue therapy — product categories that align with the technical subject matter of the eleven asserted patents.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment — no court approval or defendant consent is required. This mechanism is often used when parties reach an informal resolution (e.g., a licensing agreement or standstill) but prefer not to place settlement terms on the public record. The absence of a defendant law firm on the docket and the early-stage timing is consistent with this pattern, though the specific reasons are not disclosed publicly.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not bar re-filing. Performance Solutions retains the right to bring a new infringement action against Implus Footcare — or any other defendant — on any or all of the eleven asserted patents, subject to the applicable statute of limitations and any contractual standstill agreements that may exist between the parties. Notably, a second voluntary dismissal against the same defendant on the same claims would operate as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.