Infringement action filed 3 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 5 Sep 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
A system and method for controlling an exercise device are provided herein. The system includes a memory having computer-executable instructions and at least one processor to execute the computer-executable instructions to wirelessly connect the exercise device, receive a training mode, receive at least one variable for determining a power set point, determine the power set point responsive to the training mode and the at least one variable and control a magnetic brake assembly in the exercise device responsive to the power set point.
A bicycle trainer including folding legs and a vertically adjustable frame member supporting an axle and cassette where a rider mounts the rear frame, such as dropouts, of a conventional bicycle with the rear wheel removed. The trainer includes a flywheel with a magnetic brake assembly controlled through an open protocol and configured to receive wireless transmitted signals from an app running on a smart phone or other such applications. The flywheel assembly also includes a bracket coupling the magnetic brake with a frame. A strain gauge is mounted on the bracket to detect torque, which is used to calculate a rider's power while using the trainer.
The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Plaintiff Wahoo Fitness L.L.C. and Defendant Zwift, Inc. hereby stipulate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and subject to the approval of the Court, to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims against them in this action WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees."
Case 1:22-cv-01295 · D. Del. · closed 5 September 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1:22-cv-01295 is a patent infringement action brought by Wahoo Fitness, LLC against Zwift, filed on 3 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 5 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-01295?
US11090542B2 (“System and method for controlling a bicycle trainer”), assigned to WAHOO FITNESS LLC, currently active; US10933290B2 (“Bicycle trainer”), assigned to WAHOO FITNESS LLC, currently active; US10046222B2 (“System and method for controlling a bicycle trainer”), assigned to WAHOO FITNESS, LLC. The record also lists KICKR BIKE Smart Bike Zwift Hub, KICKR CORE Smart Bike Trainer, KICKR ROLLR Smart Bike Roller Trainer, KICKR SNAP Indoor Bike Trainer, KICKR Smart Trainer and Volt.
How was case 1:22-cv-01295 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "Plaintiff Wahoo Fitness L.L.C. and Defendant Zwift, Inc. hereby stipulate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and subject to the approval of the Court, to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims against them in this action WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees."
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:22-cv-01295 take?
337 calendar days, from filing on 3 Oct 2022 to closure on 5 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01295?
Douglas A. Robinson, J. Bradley Luchsinger, Jennifer Ying and Matthew L. Cutler are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wahoo Fitness. Albert Suarez IV, Brian E. Farnan, Christine L. Ranney, Ernest Y. Hsin, Mark N. Reiter, Michael J. Farnan, Philip J. Spear and Raymond A. LaMagna appear for defendant Zwift.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-01295 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01295 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
