SRAM v. Fox Factory: Bicycle Suspension Patent Battle Stayed After PTAB Decisions
SRAM Corporation sued Fox Factory alleging infringement of two bicycle suspension patents by the Fox 38 fork lineup and Dual Adjust Shocks. After 925 days of litigation before Judge Steve C. Jones in the Northern District of Georgia, the court stayed and administratively closed the case pending final resolution of parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings.
SRAM’s Suspension Patent Assault on Fox Factory Hits PTAB Pause
Filed on 1 February 2023 in the Northern District of Georgia, SRAM Corporation’s infringement action targets Fox Factory’s flagship Fox 38 fork family — including Performance Elite, Performance, Factory Etuned, and Factory variants — as well as Fox’s Dual Adjust Shocks and Oval Steerer Fork products. The two asserted patents, US10328993B2 and US7147207B2, cover bicycle suspension architecture claimed to be embodied in Fox Factory’s premium mountain bike product lines.
On 14 August 2025, Judge Steve C. Jones granted the parties’ joint motion to stay, administratively closing the case in response to PTAB decisions on the asserted patents. The stay is contingent: either party may move to reopen within 30 days of final adjudication of any rehearing or appeal arising from those PTAB proceedings. If reopened, the court indicated it would issue a fresh scheduling order for dispositive and Daubert motions.
The 925-day duration before the stay reflects the typical timeline when parallel IPR or post-grant review proceedings run alongside district court litigation. The joint nature of the stay motion suggests both parties recognised the PTAB outcomes are material to the infringement and validity positions. What remains unknown from the public record is the specific outcome of those PTAB decisions — whether claims were cancelled, confirmed, or amended — which will directly determine whether the district court action resumes or effectively ends.
Filing to Case Stayed in 925 days
925 days — longer than the median district court patent case, suggesting contested inter partes proceedings ran concurrently
Stay granted: what administrative closure means for both parties
A stay suspends litigation — it does not end it
An administrative stay halts all district court proceedings without adjudicating the merits. The case is formally closed for docketing purposes but remains live: either party can move to reopen within 30 days of final PTAB adjudication. Courts routinely grant such stays when PTAB proceedings directly address the validity of the same claims at issue, consistent with judicial efficiency principles under the America Invents Act framework.
No merits ruling issuedPTAB outcomes will determine whether this case revives
The stay is expressly conditioned on final resolution of any PTAB rehearing or appeal concerning the asserted patents. If PTAB cancels the challenged claims, SRAM’s infringement case likely collapses. If claims survive — in original or amended form — the district court action is expected to resume, with a new scheduling order for dispositive motions and Daubert challenges. The joint motion suggests Fox Factory had already initiated PTAB proceedings against both patents.
Conditional stay — PTAB-dependentSRAM faces validity headwinds before infringement is decided
For SRAM, the stay means infringement relief — including any potential injunction against Fox 38 sales — is deferred pending PTAB outcomes. If the challenged claims are substantially amended at PTAB, SRAM’s ability to pursue damages for pre-amendment infringement may be curtailed. SRAM retains the right to reopen proceedings, but the strategic momentum typically shifts toward the challenger once a stay is granted on PTAB grounds.
Infringement relief deferredFox Factory gains breathing room through PTAB challenge
Fox Factory’s successful joint motion — secured through Finnegan Henderson and Perkins Coie — halts any near-term threat to its Fox 38 product line. Administratively closing the case removes immediate litigation cost pressure and shifts the dispositive battleground to the PTAB, where inter partes review proceedings historically result in claim cancellation or amendment in a significant proportion of instituted cases. Fox Factory’s commercial operations face no court-imposed restriction during the stay.
Fox 38 sales unaffected during stayFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sram Corporation | Company | Bicycle component manufacturer — holder of US10328993B2 and US7147207B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fox Factory, Inc. | Company | Fox Factory, Inc. — premium bicycle suspension manufacturer, maker of Fox 38 fork seriesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Holmes J. Hawkins , III | Attorney | Counsel for Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael H. Durbin | Attorney | Counsel for Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Hickey | Attorney | Counsel for Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard B. Walsh , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Milunski | Attorney | Counsel for Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Spalding, LLP – ATL | Law Firm | Representing Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Rice LLC | Law Firm | Representing Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Rice LLC – MO | Law Firm | Representing Sram CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Arpita Bhattacharyya | Attorney | Counsel for Fox Factory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert F. McCauley | Attorney | Counsel for Fox Factory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Virginia L. Carron | Attorney | Counsel for Fox Factory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP – Atl | Law Firm | Representing Fox Factory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fox Factory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steve C. Jones | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s stay order is procedural rather than substantive: no validity or infringement finding was made. The joint motion signals that PTAB decisions on the asserted patents had already issued or were imminent, giving both parties reason to pause district court proceedings. The phrase ‘for good cause shown’ indicates the court accepted PTAB relevance as sufficient grounds. The conditional reopening mechanism preserves both parties’ litigation positions entirely — the merits remain entirely unresolved pending PTAB finality.
US10328993B2 & US7147207B2 — Bicycle Fork and Suspension Shock Technology
US10328993B2 (application US14/585629) covers bicycle suspension fork technology asserted against Fox Factory’s Fox 38 fork family — a premium mountain bike fork used across performance and factory-grade builds. US7147207B2 (application US10/904340) addresses suspension shock technology, asserted against Fox’s Dual Adjust Shocks. Both patents sit within the high-performance mountain bike suspension domain, a technically specialised field where component geometry, damping architecture, and material tolerances are frequently the subject of patent disputes.
For the mountain bike components sector, these patents represent upstream IP on suspension platform design rather than incremental feature patents. Fox Factory’s Fox 38 is a flagship product in the enduro and downhill segment — infringement exposure on a platform-level patent carries significant commercial consequence. SRAM’s ownership of foundational suspension IP, if validated through PTAB proceedings, would give it substantial leverage over Fox Factory’s premium product lineup and potentially over other OEM fork and shock manufacturers using comparable architectures.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10328993B2 and US7147207B2?
Any manufacturer, OEM integrator, or component designer working with mountain bike suspension forks or adjustable shock absorbers should treat these patents as live risk assets. The stay does not extinguish SRAM’s rights: claims that survive PTAB review in original or amended form remain fully enforceable. Brands launching new fork platforms or shock architectures in the enduro, trail, or downhill segments should assess whether their designs read on the claim language of both patents before committing to production.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10328993B2 and US7147207B2 against your product specifications, flag prosecution history estoppel that may narrow enforceability, and identify published prior art that informed the PTAB proceedings. For R&D teams designing next-generation suspension systems, Eureka’s landscape analysis can surface white-space claim opportunities and help ensure new designs fall outside SRAM’s asserted scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10328993B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Bicycle Suspension & Cycling Component Patent Cases
Cases involving bicycle fork, suspension, and cycling component patents in U.S. district courts and before the PTAB, comparable to SRAM v. Fox Factory.
What this case signals for the bicycle suspension IP landscape
The SRAM–Fox Factory dispute illustrates how PTAB proceedings have become the primary battleground for high-value cycling component patents.
PTAB filings are now standard defence against component patent assertions
Fox Factory’s apparent use of PTAB proceedings to force a stay reflects the dominant playbook in product-category patent disputes: challenge validity at the PTAB to suspend district court exposure. For bicycle and outdoor equipment IP holders, this means district court filings should anticipate parallel IPR petitions and build prosecution histories that are PTAB-resilient.
Administrative closure does not mean settlement — monitor PTAB dockets
The 30-day reopening window tied to final PTAB adjudication means this litigation could resume abruptly. IP teams at competing suspension manufacturers should monitor the PTAB proceedings on US10328993B2 and US7147207B2 closely: claim cancellation or confirmation will reset the competitive risk landscape for the entire Fox 38 product category.
Sram v Fox — key questions answered
As of 14 August 2025, the case is administratively stayed and closed by Judge Steve C. Jones in the Northern District of Georgia. The stay was granted on joint motion following PTAB decisions on the two asserted patents. Either party may move to reopen within 30 days of final adjudication of any PTAB rehearing or appeal. No merits ruling on infringement or validity has been issued.
SRAM asserted two patents: US10328993B2 (application US14/585629) and US7147207B2 (application US10/904340). Both relate to bicycle suspension technology. The patents were asserted against Fox Factory’s Fox 38 fork family (including Performance Elite, Performance, Factory Etuned, and Factory variants), Fox’s Dual Adjust Shocks, and Oval Steerer Fork products.
The court stayed the case because PTAB had issued decisions on the asserted patents. Under standard practice, district courts frequently stay patent cases when PTAB proceedings address the same claims, as PTAB outcomes may cancel or amend claims — directly affecting what can be litigated. The joint motion suggests both parties agreed the PTAB results were material to the dispute’s merits.
During the stay, no injunction, damages, or other relief can be awarded. SRAM’s infringement claims remain suspended. If PTAB cancels the challenged claims, SRAM would likely lack standing to pursue the infringement action. If claims survive, the case may be reopened and proceed to dispositive motions and potential trial. Fox Factory faces no court-imposed sales restriction during the stay period.
SRAM was represented by King & Spalding LLP (Atlanta) and Lewis Rice LLC. Fox Factory was represented by Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP (Atlanta) and Perkins Coie LLP — both firms with substantial PTAB and patent litigation practices in the technology and mechanical components sectors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.