SpeedFit LLC v. Lifecore Fitness, Inc.

Background

SpeedFit LLC and Aurel A. Astilean sued LifeCore Fitness, Inc. and Assault Fitness over the defendants’ AssaultRunner Pro and other non-motorized treadmills. The plaintiffs alleged that SpeedFit had developed and patented the Speedboard 2, a leg-powered treadmill with a curved running surface that automatically adjusts to the user’s weight and speed. They alleged that the defendants’ Assault Treadmill copied Speedboard 2 in violation of the plaintiffs’ patents.

The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: unjust enrichment and violation of New York General Business Law § 349. The unjust-enrichment claim was based on the alleged copying. The § 349 claim had two parts: a copying claim and a deceptive-acts claim based on allegations that the defendants advertised the Assault Treadmill as safe even though it lacked Speedboard 2’s injury-preventive catenary curve. The plaintiffs sought damages and a permanent injunction.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Patent-law preemption

The defendants argued that both claims were displaced by federal patent law. This type of displacement is called conflict preemption: a state-law claim cannot proceed when it conflicts with federal law or interferes with federal law’s objectives.

The court held that the unjust-enrichment claim was based solely on alleged patent infringement—making, using, offering to sell, or selling a patented invention without authority. Because federal patent law addresses both infringement and remedies such as damages, and because the plaintiffs alleged no additional element taking the claim outside patent law, the court held that the unjust-enrichment claim was preempted and dismissed it without prejudice.

The court reached the same conclusion for the § 349 copying claim because it relied on the same alleged copying conduct. That claim was also dismissed without prejudice.

The court treated the § 349 deceptive-acts claim differently. The alleged safety misrepresentations involved conduct not covered by federal patent law, so the court held that this claim was not preempted.

Statute of limitations

The defendants separately argued that the § 349 claim was filed too late. The court explained that § 349 claims generally have a three-year limitations period, measured from the plaintiff’s injury or from when the facts necessary for the claim occurred.

The plaintiffs did not dispute that more than three years had passed since the alleged safety misrepresentation. Instead, they argued that the defendants’ conduct was ongoing and therefore fell within the continuing-wrong doctrine. The court rejected that argument. It found that the amended complaint described the wrong as advertising the Assault Treadmill as safe but did not identify any particular advertisement. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged a series of separate unlawful acts that would extend the limitations period.

The court therefore held that the remaining § 349 deceptive-acts claim was time-barred and dismissed it without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint by February 16, 2023. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 20, 2023. If the plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.