Many people never think about neck-training equipment. Even inside the fitness industry, cervical training remains a specialized category, used mainly by athletes whose sports place unusual demands on the head and neck. Wrestlers, boxers, mixed martial artists, American football players, rugby athletes, race car drivers, and some rehabilitation patients have long incorporated neck-strengthening exercises into their training. Yet the equipment itself has historically occupied a small corner of the broader sports performance market, receiving little public attention outside those circles.
That changed, at least briefly, in late 2021.
A patent dispute between two companies manufacturing neck training equipment drew coverage from national legal publications after a federal court in Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in what IP lawyers frequently refer to as an extremely challenging patent procedure. Involving Gonza LLC, the company of the Neck Flex brand, and Mission Competition Fitness Equipment LLC, the case brought the attention of Bloomberg Law, Law360, and IPWatchdog to the little-known segment of the fitness industry.
How Neck Flex Built a Patented Alternative to Chain-Loaded Harnesses
The case centered on equipment designed for cervical resistance training. There are traditional techniques for strengthening one’s neck, including using weights on a harness attached to a chain, performing manual resistance, and training on large machines at fitness centers and rehab clinics. Recent research interest in cervical strength has been growing, especially within the sphere of contact sports and concussions. Numerous studies have examined the relationships among neck strength, physical activity, injury prevention, and rehabilitation. However, there is ongoing debate over the effectiveness of increasing neck strength in reducing injury risk.
It was within this environment that Neck Flex was established in Leesburg, Virginia, in 2010 by Thomas Harrison Hunt and Zachary Wyatt Elam. According to company records and later patent filings, the founders sought to develop an alternative to conventional neck-training equipment by using resistance bands rather than chain-loaded systems. Their work reportedly involved approximately 2 years of development and 9 prototypes before the company introduced its first commercial product in 2012.
The resulting product differed from many existing neck-training systems by incorporating multiple attachment points that allowed resistance to be applied from different directions. This multidirectional approach eventually became the basis for a series of United States utility patents held by Gonza LLC. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,007,405 B2, titled “Neck Exercise Device and System,” was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 18, 2021.
Why a Preliminary Injunction in a Patent Case Is Rare
Just over two months later, on July 28, 2021, Gonza LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Mission Competition Fitness Equipment LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The lawsuit alleged that Mission Competition’s Iron Neck Alpha Harness infringed the newly issued patent. Court records show that Gonza sought damages and a preliminary injunction preventing the continued sale of the competing product while the litigation proceeded.
Patent lawsuits are common in the United States. Preliminary injunctions are not.
Since the 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, patent plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief have had to satisfy a four-factor test. Those factors are a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of hardships tipping in the plaintiff’s favor, and a showing that an injunction would not disserve the public interest. Every factor has to be established, which is why preliminary injunctions are often withheld even when the plaintiff eventually prevails in the suit.
This is why the Neck Flex suit drew the attention of people beyond the fitness sector.
On December 1, 2021, Judge Alan Albright of the United States District Court ruled that Gonza’s request for a preliminary injunction had merit. According to his judgment, Gonza met the likelihood-of-success standard on its infringement claims and showed that there is a risk of irreparable harm if no injunction is granted. The court also found that the balance of hardships and public-interest considerations favored granting the preliminary injunction. Thus, Mission Competition could not sell, market, and promote its Iron Neck Alpha Harness.
How Legal Media Covered the Neck Flex Patent Ruling
Legal publications quickly reported on the decision.
Bloomberg Law covered both the original lawsuit and the subsequent injunction order. Law360 examined the court’s analysis of patent infringement and competitive harm. Intellectual property publication IPWatchdog described the ruling as a rare example of a preliminary injunction being granted in a patent case. The case also became part of the public record through filings available via GovInfo, CourtListener, Justia, and other legal databases.
How the Dispute Continued Into a Second Lawsuit
The dispute between Gonza and Mission Competition did not end with the preliminary injunction. The initial action was later resolved and closed, and the terms of that resolution were not made public.
The legal conflict resumed in 2023.
On May 23, 2023, Gonza LLC filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Mission Competition Fitness Equipment LLC in the Western District of Texas. Like the earlier litigation, the second action concerned competing cervical training products and alleged infringement of intellectual property rights associated with Neck Flex’s patented designs. Court records show the parties filed a stipulated dismissal, and the court entered a dismissal order on March 25, 2024, with each side bearing its own costs and no ruling issued on the merits.
What the Neck Flex Case Shows About Patents in Niche Markets
Although the litigation concerned a specialized exercise product, the underlying issues were familiar to intellectual property attorneys. Patent disputes involving niche technologies often carry commercial significance that extends beyond the market’s size. Companies operating in specialized sectors frequently rely on patents not only to protect engineering designs but also to establish competitive differentiation. In these circumstances, questions involving infringement, market competition, and intellectual property rights can become particularly important.
For Neck Flex, the litigation produced a level of public visibility that specialized fitness equipment companies rarely receive. Before the lawsuits, the company had largely been known among athletes, coaches, rehabilitation practitioners, and consumers interested in cervical training. The court proceedings introduced the company’s patents and product designs to legal audiences, business journalists, and intellectual property observers who otherwise might never have encountered the niche market for neck-strengthening equipment.
More broadly, the dispute illustrated how innovation in highly specialized industries can intersect with broader legal and commercial questions. Although neck-training equipment remains a small segment of the fitness market, the litigation involving Gonza LLC and Mission Competition Fitness Equipment LLC demonstrated that even the most specialized technologies can attract national attention when questions of patent protection, competition, and intellectual property enforcement reach federal court.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court records, case statuses, and legal proceedings may change over time. Readers should consult official court records or a qualified legal professional for current information or advice regarding a specific legal matter.
