iFIT, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 10 cases

10 cases on record naming iFIT, Inc.: 4 as claimant, 6 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

10 cases on record

Cases on record
10
As claimant
4
As respondent
6
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
A63B24/00 · A63B71/00 · A63B21/072 · A63B22/06 · A63B21/00 · A63B21/04 · A63B23/035 · A63B23/12
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:26-cv-00153 Portus Singapore PTE v. iFit, Inc. Defendant D. Utah 24 Feb 2026 209 d Voluntary dismissal
24-1177 Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v. Ifit, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 21 Nov 2023 629 d Case Remanded
23-1965 Ifit, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 31 May 2023 285 d Voluntary dismissal
1:22-cv-00132 PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit Defendant D. Utah 5 Oct 2022 965 d Dismissed without Prejudice
337-TA-1310 Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. iFIT, Inc. Defendant United States International Trade Commission 7 Apr 2022 109 d Closed
337-TA-1305 iFIT, Inc. v. Rexon Industrial Corp., Ltd. Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 11 Mar 2022 124 d Closed
1:21-cv-01605 Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. iFIT, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 12 Nov 2021 186 d Likely Settlement
1:21-cv-00507 iFIT, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 7 Apr 2021 405 d Likely Settlement
1:20-cv-01386 iFIT, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 15 Oct 2020 564 d Case Stayed
1:20-cv-00662 Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. iFIT, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 15 May 2020 732 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming iFIT, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what iFit is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.