Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 8 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Washington, D.C.

In <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1177.OPINION.8-11-2025_2556557.pdf">PowerBlock Holdings Inc. v. iFit Inc.</a>, No. 2024-1177 (August 11, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had deemed most claims of a patent for an automated dumbbell weight-adjustment system ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent at issue describes a selectorized dumbbell system that allows users to adjust weights electronically, addressing safety and convenience concerns associated with manual adjustment.

core/paragraph

The district court had previously granted a partial motion to dismiss, finding that the patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of automating weight selection and were implemented with generic components. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework, the court concluded that the claims did not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea and therefore failed the § 101 eligibility test.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis, emphasizing that the claims were not merely abstract but instead recited a specific mechanical implementation. The court noted that the claims were limited to a particular dumbbell configuration with defined structural components, including a stack of nested weight plates, a handle, a movable selector, and an electric motor that physically moves the selector to adjust the weight.

These elements, the Federal Circuit held, described a specific implementation of a technological improvement over prior art rather than merely automating a known process. The court rejected arguments that the claims were defined solely by their function or desired result, citing the patent’s detailed description of how the system physically moves the selector to automatically adjust dumbbell weights. The decision distinguished the case from prior rulings in which claims were found ineligible for lacking meaningful limitations or merely reciting “do it on a computer.”

Businesses developing automated solutions for mechanical devices may find stronger support for patent eligibility if their claims recite a sufficiently specific implementation that is tied to a technological improvement. The decision highlights the value of drafting claims that clearly articulate the structural and functional aspects of an invention, rather than merely reciting desired results.

This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.

https://admin.thompsonhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Federal-Circuit-Clarifies-Patent-Eligibility-for-Automated-Dumbbell-Technology.pdf

Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Eligibility for Automated Dumbbell Technology

Services