Smith v. Coulter Ventures: Fatbell Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Individual inventor Brent Smith asserted two fitness equipment patents against Coulter Ventures’ Rogue Thompson Fatbell in the Southern District of Ohio. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in just 89 days — each side bearing its own costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution outside the public record.
Inventor vs. Fitness Brand: A Swift Exit With Permanent Consequences
On February 7, 2024, individual inventor Brent Smith filed a patent infringement action against Coulter Ventures, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:24-cv-00499. Smith asserted two patents — US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 — against Coulter Ventures’ Rogue Thompson Fatbell, a specialty fitness training implement. The case was brought by Sand, Sebolt and Wernow Co., LPA, with Coulter Ventures represented by the larger team of Banner & Witcoff and Bricker Graydon.
The case resolved on May 6, 2024, when both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Dismissal with prejudice means Smith permanently waived any right to re-assert these patent claims against Coulter Ventures for the accused Fatbell product. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means no court-ordered fee award was made to either side.
At just 89 days from filing to closure, the case resolved well before any substantive motion practice or claim construction would typically be scheduled. The speed of resolution, combined with the with-prejudice dismissal and no fee-shifting, is consistent with a private settlement or licensing agreement reached early in litigation — though the specific terms, if any, are not reflected in the public record. What drove Smith to accept a permanent bar on refiling, or Coulter Ventures to avoid a fee-shifting motion, remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 89 days
89 days — resolved well before typical district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Smith from refiling the same infringement claims against Coulter Ventures on these two patents for the Fatbell product. This is not a procedural pause — it is a permanent closing of the door.
Permanent bar on refilingSmith accepts a permanent bar — no second bite at the apple
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Smith permanently surrendered his right to pursue these specific infringement claims against Coulter Ventures. This is an unusual concession for a plaintiff unless compensated by a private settlement or license. The public record does not disclose whether Smith received any financial consideration. The two asserted patents remain in force against third parties not party to this stipulation.
Patents survive vs. third partiesCoulter Ventures secures permanent protection from these claims
Coulter Ventures obtains a strong litigation outcome: Smith is permanently barred from reasserting US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 against the Rogue Thompson Fatbell under these proceedings. The mutual cost-bearing clause means Coulter Ventures absorbed its own legal costs — potentially offset by any private licensing terms. The involvement of five defense attorneys across two firms suggests Coulter Ventures mounted a robust early defense.
Fatbell permanently clearedPrivate settlement likely — but the fitness equipment IP risk remains
The rapid 89-day resolution with prejudice is strongly consistent with an early licensing agreement or lump-sum settlement, though no terms are public. For competitors in the fitness equipment space, Smith’s two patents remain enforceable against other products and parties. Any company selling similar bell-shaped or hybrid weight training implements should assess freedom-to-operate against US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 independently of this outcome.
FTO still required for competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Brent Smith | Individual | Individual inventor — holder of US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 (fitness equipment)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Coulter Ventures, LLC | Company | Coulter Ventures, LLC — operator of Rogue Fitness, maker of the Thompson FatbellSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Howard L. Wernow | Attorney | Counsel for Brent SmithSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McCarthy , III | Attorney | Counsel for Brent SmithSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sand, Sebolt And Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Brent SmithSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony J. Denis | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Drew H. Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jesse Thomas Dyer | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Pieter Van Es | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis DiSanto | Attorney | Counsel for Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bricker Graydon, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Coulter Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Ohio Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation records a clean, bilateral agreement to end the action permanently. The ‘with prejudice’ language is legally operative: under controlling precedent, it carries res judicata effect, meaning Smith cannot relitigate these infringement claims against Coulter Ventures. The mutual cost-bearing clause is notable — it forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The absence of any admission of liability or validity finding leaves the patents’ legal status unchanged as against the broader market.
US10335629B2 & US10058727B2 — Fitness Implement Design Patents
US10335629B2 (application no. US16/052087) and US10058727B2 (application no. US13/624258) are both held by individual inventor Brent Smith and relate to fitness weight implement technology — specifically the design or construction of bell-shaped or hybrid training weights of the type commercialized in the Rogue Thompson Fatbell. US10058727B2 carries an earlier application number, suggesting it represents foundational IP with US10335629B2 as a continuation or related filing extending the coverage.
For the fitness equipment sector, individual inventor patents of this type can represent significant commercial leverage when asserted against established brands with high-volume product lines. The Rogue Thompson Fatbell is a premium, widely distributed product, making it an attractive enforcement target. The combination of two patents in a single assertion — with overlapping or complementary claims — is a strategy that raises the cost of invalidity defense and increases the probability of early licensing resolution. Competitors selling similar implements should treat these patents as active enforcement assets.
Should you run an FTO against US10335629B2 and US10058727B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling bell-shaped fitness weight implements — including kettlebells, Fatsbells, hybrid dumbbells, or adjustable weight training tools — should assess freedom-to-operate against both Smith patents before commercialisation. The with-prejudice dismissal in this case protects only Coulter Ventures and the Rogue Thompson Fatbell. It creates no safe harbour for competing products or new market entrants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 against your product specifications, flag design-arounds, and surface relevant prior art that may support an invalidity position. For R&D teams developing next-generation fitness implement designs, Eureka can also identify the claim boundaries most likely to be asserted in future enforcement actions — helping you design with defensible freedom from the outset.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10335629B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fitness equipment patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable individual inventor patent assertions in the fitness equipment sector, including cases filed in the Southern District of Ohio and related jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
A fast with-prejudice exit suggests early leverage — and unresolved patent risk for the wider fitness equipment sector.
Speed and prejudice together suggest a negotiated exit, not a walkaway
When a plaintiff accepts dismissal with prejudice in under 90 days with no fee award, it typically signals a private agreement was reached — not that the claims lacked merit. IP teams at fitness equipment companies should treat this outcome as a potential licensing precedent, not a signal that these patents are weak.
Two patents, one product: stacked assertion increases early settlement pressure
Asserting both US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 simultaneously against the Fatbell increased the cost and complexity of Coulter Ventures’ defense burden. Multi-patent assertions against a single product are a common tactic to accelerate early negotiation — and the 89-day timeline suggests it may have worked here.
Smith v Coulter — key questions answered
Brent Smith filed a patent infringement suit against Coulter Ventures, LLC in the Southern District of Ohio on February 7, 2024, asserting US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 against the Rogue Thompson Fatbell. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on May 6, 2024 — 89 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Smith from refiling the same infringement claims against Coulter Ventures regarding the Rogue Thompson Fatbell. However, US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 remain enforceable against other defendants and products not covered by this stipulation. The dismissal has no effect on the patents’ validity or scope against third parties.
Smith asserted two U.S. patents: US10335629B2 (application no. US16/052087) and US10058727B2 (application no. US13/624258). Both relate to fitness weight implement technology of the type embodied in the Rogue Thompson Fatbell, a specialty training product sold by Coulter Ventures under the Rogue Fitness brand.
The 89-day resolution — well before any claim construction or substantive motion practice — is consistent with early private settlement or licensing. The with-prejudice dismissal with mutual cost-bearing suggests both parties reached an agreed resolution, though the specific financial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public court record.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal binds only Smith and Coulter Ventures with respect to the Rogue Thompson Fatbell. It does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. Other manufacturers or sellers of similar fitness weight implements must independently assess their freedom-to-operate against US10335629B2 and US10058727B2 before bringing competing products to market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.