Quanzhou Fengze vs. AB Mill: Exercise Apparatus Patent Case Dismissed After 41 Days at Federal Circuit
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Quanzhou Fengze Daxiong Net Tech Co., Ltd. v. AB Mill, LLC |
| Case Number | 25-1650 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from prior proceedings |
| Duration | Apr 2025 – May 2025 41 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal – Each side bear own costs |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Plank Support Exercise Apparatus |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Chinese technology company based in Quanzhou, Fujian Province, holding U.S. patent rights in the fitness apparatus space.
🛡️ Defendant
U.S.-based limited liability company involved in fitness or exercise product distribution.
Patents at Issue
This swift appellate case centered on U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 B2, covering innovations in devices that assist users in performing plank-position exercises:
- • US11491364B2 — Plank support exercise apparatus and related methods
Developing a new fitness product?
Check if your exercise apparatus design might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a disposition stating: “The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.” This signifies a voluntary dismissal without a ruling on the merits. No damages or injunctive relief were granted.
Key Legal Issues
The mutual cost-bearing arrangement under Rule 42(b) is legally significant: it suggests neither party was positioned as the clear victor. In patent litigation, plaintiffs who fully prevail typically seek cost recovery; defendants who successfully defeat claims often pursue fee awards under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The absence of either indicates a true compromise posture without judicial findings on infringement or validity.
Filing a fitness apparatus patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims for exercise equipment.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case, though short-lived, highlights critical IP risks in the rapidly growing fitness equipment sector. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications for the fitness equipment industry.
- View the patent landscape for plank support apparatus
- See which companies are most active in fitness equipment patents
- Understand voluntary dismissal strategies in appellate patent cases
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Plank support exercise apparatus designs
Active US11491364B2
Focus for FTO in fitness tech
Design-Around Opportunities
Available for similar product concepts
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Federal Circuit voluntary dismissals under Rule 42(b) with mutual cost-bearing frequently signal confidential settlement.
Search related case law →Chinese IP holders are increasingly sophisticated in U.S. patent enforcement, engaging experienced domestic counsel at appellate stages.
Explore precedents →For R&D Teams
US11491364B2 remains an active, enforceable patent; conduct FTO analysis before commercializing plank support apparatus designs.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Appellate docketing, even without a merits ruling, can serve as meaningful settlement leverage in patent disputes.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.