Savvier Fitness v. Superspeed: Barre Device Patents End in Partial Default Judgment
Savvier Fitness LLC filed suit in the Central District of California against Superspeed LLC and three related defendants over two portable barre exercise device patents. The court entered default judgment on unfair competition but dismissed the patent infringement claim after Savvier failed to file an amended complaint — closing a 623-day case without a merits ruling on the core IP claims.
Default Judgment Win on Unfair Competition, Patent Claim Lost to Inaction
Savvier Fitness LLC, holder of US10821313B2 and US11389684B2 covering portable barre exercise devices, filed suit on March 23, 2023 in the Central District of California against Superspeed LLC, Dongguan Shihaojuwujiaju Youxiangongsi (d/b/a Seleware), Fangzhen Tang (d/b/a Kipika), and Li Zou. The action alleged both patent infringement and unfair competition in connection with competing portable barre exercise products.
On August 1, 2024, the court entered default judgment against all defendants on the unfair competition claim. However, it denied Savvier’s request for default judgment on the patent infringement claim, granting 21 days to file an amended complaint or renewed application. Savvier never did so, and the court dismissed the patent infringement claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) — ending the case without any merits adjudication on the asserted patents.
The 623-day duration reflects the time required to pursue default proceedings against non-appearing defendants, which is procedurally lengthy but not atypical in cross-border IP disputes. The dismissal of the patent claim is notable: the court’s initial denial suggests the default judgment application as pleaded was insufficient to support the patent cause of action on its own, and Savvier’s failure to cure leaves the patents’ enforceability against these defendants entirely unresolved from a merits standpoint.
Filing to Default Judgment in 623 days
623 days from filing to close — consistent with default judgment proceedings in C.D. Cal.
Rule 41(b) dismissal: what the court’s order means for both parties
Rule 41(b) dismissal ends the patent claim without merits ruling
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. Here, the court gave Savvier a clear 21-day window to cure deficiencies in its patent infringement default judgment application. When Savvier did not act, the court dismissed the patent claim. This is a procedural termination — the court made no finding on whether the patents were valid or infringed.
Procedural dismissal — no merits findingSavvier wins on unfair competition but loses its patent enforcement lever
Savvier secured default judgment on unfair competition, which provides some relief against these specific defendants. However, the dismissal of the patent infringement claim means Savvier obtained no judicial determination that its barre device patents were infringed. The public record does not specify whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice under Rule 41(b), which carries different implications for Savvier’s ability to refile against the same or similar defendants.
Partial win — patent claim unresolvedDefault judgment on unfair competition stands; patent liability avoided procedurally
The defendants — none of whom appeared to defend — face enforceable default judgment on the unfair competition claim. Yet they avoided any judicial finding of patent infringement. Whether this provides meaningful protection in future enforcement actions depends on the preclusive effect of the Rule 41(b) dismissal, which is fact-specific and not definitively resolved by this order alone.
Default on UC; patent claim dismissedBarre device IP landscape left uncertain by plaintiff’s procedural failure
US10821313B2 and US11389684B2 remain active patents with no merits adjudication following this case. Competitors and importers of portable barre exercise devices cannot draw comfort from this dismissal as a validity or non-infringement finding. Savvier retains the right to assert these patents in future proceedings, and the unfair competition default judgment signals ongoing willingness to enforce its commercial position in this product category.
Patents unlitigated — future risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Savvier Fitness, LLC | Company | Fitness equipment IP holder — holder of US10821313B2 and US11389684B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Superspeed, LLC | Company | Superspeed LLC and affiliated Chinese manufacturer and individuals selling competing barre productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dongguan Shihaojuwujiaju Youxiangongsi | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fangzhen Tang | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Li Zou | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Peter Costa | Attorney | Counsel for Savvier Fitness, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yasaman Khalifian | Attorney | Counsel for Savvier Fitness, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | CostaLaw | Law Firm | Representing Savvier Fitness, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a bifurcated outcome unusual in default proceedings: it granted default judgment on unfair competition while denying it on patent infringement — signalling that the patent claim as pleaded lacked sufficient evidentiary support to satisfy the court’s independent review obligation under Rule 55(b). The subsequent Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute is a procedural termination with no finding on validity or infringement, leaving both patents fully assertable in future proceedings. The order’s silence on whether dismissal is with or without prejudice is a material ambiguity for both parties.
US10821313B2 & US11389684B2 — Portable Barre Exercise Device Patents
US10821313B2 (Application No. US16/357060) and US11389684B2 (Application No. US17/075044) cover portable barre exercise device technology — the category of freestanding or wall-independent ballet and fitness barre equipment used in home and studio settings. These are continuation-family patents, suggesting Savvier pursued layered claim coverage across structural and functional aspects of its barre product design. The staggered application numbers indicate sequential prosecution aimed at broadening or refining protection as the product category evolved.
For the fitness equipment sector, these patents represent IP infrastructure around a product category that has seen significant growth through direct-to-consumer and e-commerce channels. The involvement of a Chinese OEM manufacturer (Dongguan Shihaojuwujiaju) and multiple branded resellers as defendants is consistent with a supply-chain enforcement strategy. Companies commercialising portable barre products — whether as manufacturers, importers, or platform sellers — face residual risk from these patents given the absence of any merits adjudication in this case.
Should your team run an FTO against US10821313B2 and US11389684B2?
Any company designing, importing, or selling portable barre exercise devices — particularly those sourcing from Chinese manufacturers or selling through Amazon, Walmart, or similar platforms — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against both asserted patents. The lack of any invalidity or non-infringement finding in this case means these patents carry their full presumption of validity. Product teams considering entry into this category, or existing sellers reviewing supply chain exposure, should prioritise FTO review before scaling distribution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map product features against the claims of US10821313B2 and US11389684B2 in minutes — identifying overlap, potential design-around options, and prior art candidates. With automated claim chart generation and competitive patent landscape analysis, Eureka gives IP counsel the evidence base needed to advise product teams accurately and efficiently on barre device patent risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10821313B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Fitness Equipment Patent Disputes in C.D. California
Explore related patent infringement cases involving fitness equipment and exercise device IP litigated in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP enforcement landscape
A partial default judgment outcome with a lapsed patent claim raises specific risks for importers and e-commerce sellers of competing barre devices.
Default judgment proceedings demand patent-specific pleading — general filings fall short
The court’s denial of default judgment on the patent claim, while granting it on unfair competition, suggests that patent infringement requires a more rigorous evidentiary showing even in default proceedings. IP counsel pursuing default judgments against non-appearing defendants should anticipate courts scrutinising claim charts and patent-product mapping with the same care as contested cases.
US10821313B2 and US11389684B2 remain live enforcement tools for Savvier Fitness
No merits ruling on validity or infringement was issued. These two barre exercise device patents retain full enforceability. Importers, online retailers, and OEM manufacturers of portable barre equipment — particularly those sourcing from Chinese suppliers — should treat these patents as live risk and conduct FTO analysis before entering or expanding in this product category.
Savvier v Superspeed — key questions answered
The court entered default judgment against all defendants on Savvier’s unfair competition claim on August 1, 2024. The patent infringement claim was dismissed under Rule 41(b) after Savvier failed to file an amended complaint or renewed default judgment application within the court’s 21-day deadline. The case was closed on December 5, 2024.
No. The court denied Savvier’s application for default judgment on the patent infringement claim and subsequently dismissed that claim under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. No merits determination on infringement or validity was issued. Both patents retain their full presumption of validity.
A Rule 41(b) dismissal is a procedural termination for failure to comply with a court order or prosecute the case. It carries no finding on the merits of the patent infringement claims. Depending on whether the dismissal operates with or without prejudice — a question the order leaves ambiguous — Savvier may or may not be able to refile those claims against the same defendants.
The defendants are Superspeed LLC, Dongguan Shihaojuwujiaju Youxiangongsi (d/b/a Seleware), Fangzhen Tang (d/b/a Kipika), and Li Zou. None of the defendants appeared to contest the action, resulting in default proceedings. All four were subject to the default judgment entered on the unfair competition claim.
Yes. Because the patent infringement claims were dismissed on procedural grounds without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, both patents remain enforceable. Companies manufacturing, importing, or selling portable barre exercise devices should treat these patents as live and conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before commercialising competing products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.