Shenzhen Ouruiyu v. Performance Solutions: 5-in-1 Foam Roller Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Shenzhen Ouruiyu Technology Co., Ltd. brought a patent infringement action against Performance Solutions, LLC in the Northern District of California, asserting US9656112B2 over a 5-in-1 foam roller set. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice just 156 days after filing — permanently closing the door on this specific claim.
A swift voluntary exit: foam roller patent suit ends in 156 days
On 4 June 2024, Shenzhen Ouruiyu Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer fitness products company, filed a patent infringement action against Performance Solutions, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit centred on US9656112B2, a patent covering a multi-component foam roller set that includes a hollow foam roller, massage ball, storage bag, stretching band, and yoga stick — marketed together as a 5-in-1 fitness recovery kit.
The case closed on 7 November 2024 when the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This mechanism allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it bars Shenzhen Ouruiyu from reasserting the same patent claims against Performance Solutions in any future action.
A resolution in 156 days — before any substantive court rulings — is consistent with a negotiated settlement or a commercial decision to withdraw. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement, payment, or business arrangement accompanied the dismissal. What remains unknown is whether the dismissal reflects a weakness in the infringement case, a commercial resolution favouring the defendant, or a strategic repositioning by the plaintiff in the broader market.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 156 days
156 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case duration of ~2.5 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal, with prejudice
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without court approval before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Filing ‘with prejudice’ goes further than required — the plaintiff has expressly chosen to forfeit any future right to bring the same claims against this defendant. No merits determination was made by the court.
No merits rulingShenzhen Ouruiyu permanently surrenders these infringement claims
By dismissing with prejudice, Shenzhen Ouruiyu cannot refile this action against Performance Solutions on the same US9656112B2 claims. The plaintiff retains the patent itself and may still enforce it against other parties, but this specific dispute is conclusively ended at the plaintiff’s own initiative. The commercial rationale — whether settlement, licence, or strategic withdrawal — is not disclosed in the public record.
Claims permanently barredPerformance Solutions exits with full finality, no liability finding
Performance Solutions, represented by Nixon Peabody LLP, achieved a complete exit from this litigation with no court-ordered liability, no injunction, and no damages award on record. The with-prejudice designation provides strong protection: the same patent claims cannot be reasserted against them. Whether any commercial terms were agreed privately is unknown from the public docket.
No liability on recordUS9656112B2 remains enforceable — but this dispute is closed
The dismissal does not invalidate US9656112B2. Competitors in the multi-component foam roller and fitness recovery product space should note that the patent remains active and asserted. Other sellers of substantially similar 5-in-1 foam roller kits face continued infringement risk from this plaintiff. The speed of resolution — 156 days — suggests the parties may have reached a private commercial arrangement rather than litigating the merits.
Patent still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Ouruiyu Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer fitness products company — holder of US9656112B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Performance Solutions, LLC | Company | U.S.-based commercial solutions company accused of infringing foam roller fitness set patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yue Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Ouruiyu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Apex Attorneys at Law, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Ouruiyu Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Asheesh P. Puri | Attorney | Counsel for Performance Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Nixon Peabody LLP | Law Firm | Representing Performance Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed unilaterally by the plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), requiring no court approval or defendant consent at this procedural stage. The ‘with prejudice’ election is notable — a standard voluntary dismissal without that designation would preserve the plaintiff’s right to refile. By affirmatively choosing the with-prejudice form, Shenzhen Ouruiyu permanently extinguished its infringement claims against this specific defendant, suggesting either a negotiated resolution or a deliberate commercial decision to close the matter finally.
US9656112B2 — multi-component foam roller fitness recovery set
US9656112B2, filed under application number US15/005380, protects a multi-component fitness recovery set centred on a hollow foam roller. The asserted product configuration combines a 33×14 cm hollow foam roller, massage ball, stretching band, yoga stick, and storage bag as an integrated kit. This type of patent — covering a defined product bundle or kit configuration — can capture broad commercial territory in the consumer fitness accessories market, particularly for imported product sets.
The fitness recovery and self-myofascial release segment has seen significant product proliferation from Asian manufacturers supplying global e-commerce channels. A patent like US9656112B2, held by a Shenzhen-based entity, is strategically positioned to challenge competitors importing substantially similar bundled sets into the U.S. market. The case signals that even niche consumer fitness product configurations can be subject to active patent enforcement, raising the IP risk profile for Amazon sellers, sporting goods retailers, and physical therapy product distributors alike.
Should your foam roller product line be cleared against US9656112B2?
Any brand, distributor, or e-commerce seller offering a multi-component foam roller kit — particularly one combining a hollow roller, massage ball, and accessories in a bundled set — should assess freedom to operate against US9656112B2. The plaintiff has demonstrated willingness to litigate in U.S. federal court, and the patent remains fully enforceable post-dismissal. Physical therapy brands, sporting goods importers, and private-label fitness product companies face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your specific product configuration against the claims of US9656112B2, identify prior art that may narrow enforceability, and flag related patents in the same family or by the same assignee. For product teams launching new recovery kit SKUs, a rapid FTO check before market entry is substantially less costly than defending a federal infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9656112B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar foam roller and fitness equipment patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving foam roller, massage, and fitness recovery product patents filed in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
Short-lived infringement actions against consumer fitness product importers are increasingly common. This case illustrates the commercial leverage a Chinese patent holder can wield.
With-prejudice dismissals do not invalidate the underlying patent
US9656112B2 survives this case fully intact. Brands selling foam roller sets, massage balls, or multi-component recovery kits should conduct FTO analysis against this patent — especially if their products resemble the 5-in-1 configuration described. The plaintiff retains full enforcement rights against third parties.
Speed of resolution suggests a pre-answer commercial arrangement
Dismissal in 156 days, before any court ruling on the merits, is consistent with a private settlement, licence, or product-line adjustment. Companies facing similar early-stage actions should assess whether a commercial resolution is more efficient than full litigation, particularly where the accused product has a defined market value.
Shenzhen v Performance — key questions answered
The plaintiff, Shenzhen Ouruiyu, filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This permanently bars the plaintiff from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Performance Solutions. No merits ruling was issued by the court. The patent US9656112B2 itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
The asserted patent is US9656112B2 (application US15/005380). It covers a 5-in-1 foam roller fitness set comprising a hollow foam roller (33×14 cm), a massage ball, a stretching band, a yoga stick, and a storage bag. The infringement action alleged that Performance Solutions’ products infringed this patent configuration.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes claims only against Performance Solutions in this specific action. Shenzhen Ouruiyu retains full ownership of US9656112B2 and may assert it against other defendants. Competitors selling similar multi-component foam roller sets remain at risk of receiving demand letters or facing new infringement actions.
The public record does not specify the exact basis for NDCA venue selection. Typically, plaintiffs file in a district where the defendant resides, conducts business, or where infringing products are sold. The Northern District of California is a well-resourced venue with an experienced patent judiciary, which may have factored into plaintiff counsel’s filing strategy.
A 156-day resolution — well before any substantive court ruling — is consistent with either a private settlement, a licensing arrangement, or a commercial decision by the plaintiff to withdraw. The public record does not confirm whether any financial or business terms were exchanged. The with-prejudice designation, however, confirms the plaintiff made a deliberate and final decision to end litigation against this defendant.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.