Rogue Fitness v. Bells of Steel: Consent Judgment on Five Patents in 279 Days
Coulter Ventures LLC, operating as Rogue Fitness, sued Bells of Steel USA Inc. and Bells of Steel Inc. in Indiana’s Southern District Court over five patents spanning folding power racks, weight plates, and Olympic barbells. Bells of Steel conceded infringement across all counts and agreed to cease selling the accused product line — resolving a five-patent dispute in under ten months without a trial.
Five-patent IP sweep: Rogue Fitness corners Bells of Steel on gym rack and barbell IP
On August 8, 2023, Coulter Ventures LLC — operating as Rogue Fitness — filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc. and its Canadian parent Bells of Steel Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, asserting five counts of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The asserted patents cover utility and design aspects of folding power racks, weight plates, and Olympic barbells, including two utility patents (US10226661B2, US11173337B2), two design patents (USD961020S, USD992063S), and one design patent reissue (USRE49513).
The case resolved on May 13, 2024, via a Consent Judgment — a court-entered order to which both parties stipulated. Bells of Steel admitted that the accused products, including the Hydra folding rack series and Women’s Barbell 2.0, infringed one or more claims of each of the five Rogue Patents. Crucially, the defendants conceded the patents’ validity and enforceability, agreed to permanently cease manufacturing, importing, selling, or distributing the accused products (subject only to a limited sell-off window defined in an accompanying private Settlement Agreement), and waived appeal rights.
Resolution in 279 days is notably fast for a five-patent infringement suit, suggesting the evidentiary position strongly favoured Rogue or that Bells of Steel assessed litigation risk as prohibitive relative to the commercial value of the accused line. The private Settlement Agreement referenced in the judgment likely contains financial terms — royalties, damages, or a lump-sum payment — that are not publicly disclosed. What is known from the public record is that Bells of Steel bears no court-ordered costs but surrendered its entire accused product portfolio and its right to contest the patents in future proceedings.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 279 days
279 days — resolved well below the median patent case trial duration of 2–3 years
Consent Judgment: what Bells of Steel’s admission means for both parties
Consent Judgment is not a settlement — it is a court order
A Consent Judgment is a final judicial decree, not merely a private contract. By stipulating to its entry, Bells of Steel subjected itself to direct court enforcement, including contempt proceedings, for any future violations. Unlike a dismissed settlement, this judgment is publicly binding, res judicata on all claims that were or could have been raised, and expressly non-appealable under the parties’ agreement.
Binding final adjudicationRogue secures enforceable admissions across all five patents
Rogue Fitness obtained defendant admissions that all five asserted patents are valid and enforceable — a stronger public record than a simple dismissal. These admissions raise the bar significantly for any future challenger to those patents. Rogue also secured a permanent injunction-equivalent: Bells of Steel cannot reintroduce any accused product or any product infringing the Rogue Patents, with court jurisdiction retained for enforcement.
Validity confirmed by consentBells of Steel exits the accused product lines and waives appeal
Bells of Steel conceded infringement across all counts and permanently withdrew the Hydra rack series, the 45lb Deep Dish Plate, and the Women’s Barbell 2.0 from the market (beyond a limited sell-off period). By waiving appeal, the defendants foreclosed any opportunity to challenge claim construction or validity at the Federal Circuit. Their exposure to re-litigation on these patents is now barred by res judicata.
Market exit on accused productsRogue’s multi-patent IP stack deters future competitive imitation
A five-patent Consent Judgment — spanning utility, design, and reissue patents — signals that Rogue Fitness actively layers its IP protection across both functional and aesthetic dimensions of its equipment. Competitors in the folding rack and barbell space should treat this outcome as a strong deterrent signal. The combination of admitted validity and a retained-jurisdiction enforcement mechanism makes Rogue’s IP posture in this product category notably difficult to design around without FTO analysis.
Layered IP enforcement strategyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Coulter Ventures, LLC | Company | Fitness equipment manufacturer and IP licensor — holder of US10226661B2 and 4 further patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bells of Steel USA, Inc. | Company | Canadian-based fitness equipment brand selling gym racks, plates, and barbells in the U.S. marketSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Bells of Steel, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron D. Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alaina Pak | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. Pieter van Es | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Thomas Earl | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Louis DiSanto | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Wagner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric W. Misterovich | Attorney | Counsel for Bells of Steel USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erik J. Dykema | Attorney | Counsel for Bells of Steel USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John A. Di Giacomo | Attorney | Counsel for Bells of Steel USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Revision Legal, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bells of Steel USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Indiana Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Consent Judgment’s language is unusually explicit: Bells of Steel did not merely agree to stop selling — they affirmatively admitted infringement, validity, and enforceability across all five patents. The phrase ‘final adjudication of all claims, counterclaims, and defenses that were, or could have been, brought’ invokes a broad res judicata bar. The express waiver of appeal rights further forecloses any post-judgment challenge. For Rogue, the verdict functions as both an injunction and a public record of patent strength.
US10226661B2 and 4 further patents — folding gym racks, weight plates, and barbells
The five asserted patents span two complementary dimensions of Rogue’s product architecture. The utility patents — US10226661B2 and US11173337B2 — protect the functional mechanics of folding rack systems, covering structural configurations that allow commercial-grade power racks to fold flat against a wall. The design patents (USD961020S, USD992063S, and reissue USRE49513) protect the ornamental appearance of specific components, including weight plate geometries. Together, they represent a deliberate strategy of encircling core product innovations from multiple IP angles.
For fitness equipment manufacturers and new market entrants, this portfolio is strategically significant. Rogue has demonstrated a willingness to enforce both utility and design rights aggressively, and the reissue patent (USRE49513) suggests the company has already broadened at least one patent’s claims post-grant. Any competitor developing folding rack systems, deep-dish weight plates, or Olympic barbells with visual or functional similarity to Rogue’s product line faces credible multi-front infringement exposure. The admitted validity finding in this Consent Judgment further reinforces the enforceability of these assets.
Should your team run an FTO against Rogue’s five fitness equipment patents?
If your company designs, imports, or distributes folding power racks, modular wall-mounted gym systems, deep-dish weight plates, or Olympic-spec barbells for the U.S. market, these five patents present a direct freedom-to-operate risk. The Bells of Steel case demonstrates that both U.S. subsidiaries and foreign parent companies can be named — meaning a Canadian, European, or Asian manufacturer selling into the U.S. carries real exposure. Product teams should assess whether their designs clear both the utility and ornamental claim scopes.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim language of all five asserted patents, flag design-around risks across utility and design patent families, and surface prior art that may be relevant if any of these patents face future inter partes review. For R&D teams entering the commercial fitness equipment market, Eureka provides a structured, citation-backed FTO report that supports both legal review and product development decisions — before a lawsuit is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10226661B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fitness equipment patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving fitness equipment, gym rack systems, and exercise product IP litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
Rogue’s five-patent enforcement strategy and rapid Consent Judgment outcome sets a precedent for how premium fitness brands can defend product IP.
Utility + design + reissue stacking creates near-impenetrable IP walls
Rogue asserted utility patents, design patents, and a reissue patent simultaneously. This layered approach means a competitor must design around functional claims, ornamental appearance claims, and broadened reissue claims all at once. Any fitness equipment company developing folding racks or Olympic barbells should run a multi-patent FTO before launch.
Consent Judgments with admitted validity are powerful future-use weapons
By securing a defendant’s on-record admission that five patents are valid and enforceable, Rogue Fitness has strengthened its hand in any future IPR challenge or infringement action against different defendants. Courts and the PTAB give weight to prior judicial admissions, even if not formally binding on third parties.
Coulter v Bells — key questions answered
The case resolved by Consent Judgment on May 13, 2024. Bells of Steel USA Inc. and Bells of Steel Inc. admitted infringement of all five Rogue patents, conceded their validity and enforceability, and agreed to permanently cease selling, importing, and distributing the accused products. Each party bore its own costs.
Rogue asserted five patents: utility patents US10226661B2 and US11173337B2 (covering folding rack functional systems), design patents USD961020S and USD992063S (ornamental product designs), and design patent reissue USRE49513. The patents cover folding power racks, weight plates, and Olympic barbells.
The accused products included the Hydra 3×3 Inch Folding Half Rack, Hydra 3×3 Inch Folding Power Rack, Hydra 3×3 Inch Wall Mounted Power Rack, Hydra Pre-Built Folding variants, Hydra Sliding Lever Arms, the 45lb Deep Dish Plate, and the Women’s Barbell 2.0 Olympic Weightlifting barbell.
A Consent Judgment is a court-entered final order, not merely a private contract. It is res judicata on all claims that were or could have been raised, is publicly enforceable through contempt proceedings, and — as in this case — can include express waivers of appeal. A private settlement may allow ongoing product sales or leave validity uncontested; this Consent Judgment did neither.
Bells of Steel is permanently barred from manufacturing, importing, selling, or distributing the accused products, subject only to a limited sell-off period defined in a private Settlement Agreement. The Consent Judgment also prohibits any product that infringes the Rogue Patents or shares model names, SKUs, ASINs, or UPCs with the accused products. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce these terms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.