Yongkang Jiebao v. Core Home Fitness: Weight Device Patent Settled in 192 Days
Chinese manufacturer Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co. filed a patent infringement action against fitness equipment retailer Core Home Fitness and Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC over US7614983B1, a patent covering weight selecting devices. The case resolved in principle within 192 days, with the court marking the docket settled and dismissed without prejudice pending a final stipulation.
Chinese Fitness Equipment Maker Settles Weight-Device Patent Dispute Fast
On November 4, 2024, Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co. LTD, a Chinese industrial and trade manufacturer, filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Benita Y. Pearson. The defendants were Michael Gayetsky, Core Home Fitness LLC — a U.S. home fitness equipment company — and Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC. The asserted patent, US7614983B1, covers weight selecting devices, a technology central to adjustable weight and home gym equipment markets.
The case ended on May 15, 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay all Deadlines and Notice of Settlement. The court granted the motion in part, marking the docket ‘settled and dismissed without prejudice.’ The parties were directed to submit an executed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice on or before June 16, 2025, or the plaintiff could move to reopen. The without-prejudice dismissal at this stage means the settlement terms control the ultimate finality of the resolution.
A resolution within 192 days — before any case management conference was even held — suggests the parties moved quickly once litigation pressure was applied, which is consistent with pre-trial cost avoidance strategies common in product-focused patent disputes. The involvement of Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC, an entity whose name suggests a patent-holding or licensing structure, alongside a retailer defendant, may indicate a layered IP ownership question that influenced settlement dynamics. The precise financial terms, licensing arrangements, and the identities of any ongoing business relationships remain undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Case Settled in 192 days
192 days — resolved faster than the median U.S. district court patent case, which typically exceeds 2 years at trial
Settled and dismissed: what the court’s order means for both parties
Dismissed without prejudice — but with a deadline to convert
The court did not enter a final dismissal with prejudice. Instead, it marked the docket ‘settled and dismissed without prejudice,’ requiring the parties to file an executed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice by June 16, 2025. This two-step structure is a common judicial practice that preserves court oversight while giving parties time to finalize settlement documentation. If no stipulation is filed, the plaintiff retains the right to reopen proceedings.
Conditional without-prejudice dismissalThe record is silent on final prejudice status at closure
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims — it is the stronger finality protection for defendants. A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. At the case closure date of May 15, 2025, the docket was marked without prejudice. Whether the parties subsequently filed a stipulation converting this to with-prejudice dismissal is not determinable from the public record captured here. Practitioners should check the live docket for any post-May 15 filings.
Final prejudice status unconfirmedJiebao exits with settlement; patent enforceability preserved
Yongkang Jiebao achieved a settlement in principle without going to trial or claim construction, preserving US7614983B1 from any adverse judicial ruling on validity or infringement scope. As plaintiff, Jiebao retains the ability to enforce the patent in future actions unless the final settlement stipulation contains a license, covenant not to sue, or other restriction. The swift resolution may reflect leverage gained from the patent’s issuance and the defendants’ apparent commercial exposure.
Patent survived litigation intactCore Home Fitness and Bruno Intellectual Reserve avoid merits ruling
For Core Home Fitness LLC, Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC, and Michael Gayetsky, settlement avoids a potentially adverse infringement finding and limits litigation costs. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was entered, meaning US7614983B1 remains a live risk for the defendants or others in the weight-selecting device market. The settlement terms — including any licence, payment, or product modification — are not publicly disclosed, so the commercial impact on defendants’ ongoing operations cannot be assessed from the public record.
No merits adjudication enteredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co., LTD | Company | Chinese fitness equipment manufacturer — holder of US7614983B1 (weight selecting devices)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Michael Gayetsky | Individual | Core Home Fitness LLC (U.S. retailer) and Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC (IP holding entity), plus individual defendant Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | CORE HOME FITNESS, L.L.C. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zheng Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Aptum Law – San Mateo | Law Firm | Representing Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian A. Coulter | Attorney | Counsel for Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Howard L. Wernow | Attorney | Counsel for Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James F. McCarthy , III | Attorney | Counsel for Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew G. Vansuch | Attorney | Counsel for Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brouse McDowell – Canfield | Law Firm | Representing Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Roetzel & Andress – Canfield | Law Firm | Representing Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Michael GayetskySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Benita Y. Pearson | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the Joint Motion to Stay in part reflects standard judicial practice when parties reach a settlement in principle before formal case milestones. The phrasing ‘settled and dismissed without prejudice’ is not a final merits disposition — it is a provisional administrative closure preserving court jurisdiction pending execution of the formal dismissal stipulation. The direction to file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice by June 16, 2025 signals the court’s expectation of finality, but the public record as of the closure date does not confirm whether that filing occurred.
US7614983B1 — Weight Selecting Devices: Adjustable Fitness Equipment
US7614983B1 (application number US11/983213) covers weight selecting devices — technology that enables users to select, lock, and adjust specific weight increments in adjustable dumbbell and weight stack systems. This category of patent is commercially significant in the home fitness market, where adjustable weight products compete aggressively on convenience and mechanical reliability. The patent’s issuance as a utility patent with a B1 designation indicates it issued without prior publication, suggesting a compact prosecution history.
Weight selecting device patents occupy a contested and commercially dense area of the fitness equipment IP landscape. As home fitness grew substantially post-2020, the value of mechanical adjustment IP increased with it. Yongkang Jiebao’s willingness to assert this patent in U.S. federal court against a domestic retailer and an IP holding entity signals a sophisticated enforcement posture. Competitors and distributors in the adjustable dumbbell and selectorised weight equipment space should treat US7614983B1 as an active enforcement risk, particularly given that no invalidity finding was entered and the patent survived litigation without judicial challenge.
Should you run an FTO against US7614983B1?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or retailing adjustable weight selecting devices — including selectorised dumbbells, pin-loaded weight stacks, and modular home gym systems — should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against US7614983B1. The patent survived this litigation without any invalidity ruling, and the plaintiff demonstrated willingness to enforce in U.S. federal court. Retailers sourcing from Chinese OEMs are particularly exposed if their suppliers do not indemnify against third-party patent claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7614983B1 against your product specifications, identify design-around options, and surface related continuation or divisional applications in the same family. Eureka can also flag whether Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC or related entities hold overlapping rights in the weight-selecting device space — giving your product and legal teams a complete picture before launch or procurement decisions are finalised.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7614983B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Weight-Device and Fitness Equipment Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving mechanical fitness equipment patents in U.S. district courts, including adjustable weight and exercise device infringement actions with comparable enforcement profiles.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
A Chinese OEM asserting U.S. patent rights against domestic fitness retailers is a growing enforcement pattern worth monitoring.
OEM patent assertion against retailers is an escalating risk vector
Yongkang Jiebao’s enforcement action illustrates a pattern where Asian manufacturers — who often hold foundational mechanical patents — assert U.S. rights against downstream retailers and distributors. Fitness equipment brands sourcing adjustable weight products should audit their supply chain IP exposure before litigation crystallises.
Sub-200-day resolution signals strong pre-trial settlement incentive
The case resolved before any claim construction hearing or significant discovery, consistent with defendants choosing to settle rather than contest infringement. For IP counsel, this timeline suggests that patent holders in the weight-device space can generate meaningful settlement pressure quickly when the product overlap is clear.
Yongkang v Michael — key questions answered
The case settled in principle after 192 days. On May 15, 2025, the Northern District of Ohio marked the docket ‘settled and dismissed without prejudice,’ with parties directed to file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice by June 16, 2025. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was entered.
Plaintiff Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co. LTD asserted US7614983B1 (application number US11/983213), a patent covering weight selecting devices. The patent relates to adjustable weight selection and locking mechanisms used in home and commercial fitness equipment such as selectorised dumbbells.
The defendants are Michael Gayetsky (individual), Core Home Fitness LLC (a U.S. home fitness equipment company), and Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC (an apparent IP holding entity). All three were represented by counsel from Brouse McDowell, Roetzel & Andress, and Sand, Sebolt & Wernow.
No. The settlement did not produce any invalidity finding. US7614983B1 was not adjudicated on its merits, and the court entered no ruling on claim construction, infringement, or validity. The patent remains in force and continues to represent an enforcement risk for others in the weight-selecting device market.
At closure on May 15, 2025, the court marked the case ‘settled and dismissed without prejudice,’ meaning the plaintiff retained the right to refile if the final settlement stipulation was not executed. The court directed parties to file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice by June 16, 2025 to achieve final resolution. Whether that stipulation was filed is not confirmed in the public record captured here.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.