Wahoo vs. JetBlack: A Deep Dive into the Latest Smart Trainer patent Dispute
The cycling world is buzzing again with legal action. Wahoo, a leading innovator in indoor cycling technology, has filed a new lawsuit against JetBlack, a smart trainer manufacturer.This isn’t the first time thes companies have clashed over patents, but the current dispute is significantly different – and potentially more impactful – than the 2022 settlement. Here’s a thorough breakdown of what’s happening, why it matters to you, and what it could mean for the future of smart trainers.
A Quick Recap: The 2022 Patent battle
In 2022, Wahoo successfully sued JetBlack over patent infringement related to the design of smart trainer flywheels and belts. This resulted in JetBlack modifying its designs and a financial settlement. Many assumed that would be the end of the story. Though,JetBlack quickly released a new model,the Victory,offering a compelling alternative to Wahoo’s offerings.
The JetBlack victory boasts extraordinary features:
* Zwift Cog pre-installed for seamless virtual training.
* +/- 2% power accuracy for reliable performance data.
* 1800 max resistance, simulating challenging climbs.
* WiFi connectivity for easy integration with training apps.
* 10Hz race mode for responsive power measurement during competitions.
* A price point of $399, significantly lower than comparable Wahoo models (like the $549 Kickr).
The Victory launched in November 2024, and for a year, operated without challenge. Now, Wahoo is back with a new claim.
Why this Lawsuit is Different
The key difference lies in the patents Wahoo is now asserting.While the 2022 case centered on hardware components,this 2025 filing focuses on software and the underlying technology controlling the trainer. Specifically, Wahoo is citing four patents:
- Patent 10,933,290
- patent 11,559,732 (issued in 2023)
- Patent 11,090,542
- Patent 12,330,036 (issued June 2024)
This is a crucial distinction. The newer patents, especially 11,559,732 and 12,330,036, were granted after the previous settlement. This suggests Wahoo believes JetBlack’s Victory infringes on more recent innovations.
The Focus on Software: Virtual Shifting and Firmware control
wahoo’s current claim appears to be centered around the “System and Method for Controlling a Bicycle Trainer” (Patent 12,330,036). This patent covers the firmware used to precisely control power output, a critical component for features like virtual shifting – a key selling point of the JetBlack Victory when used with the Zwift Cog.
Essentially, Wahoo is arguing that JetBlack’s software is too similar to its own, potentially infringing on its intellectual property. This shift from hardware to software is a important development in the case.
A Change in Tactics: The ITC Complaint
Perhaps the most dramatic change is where Wahoo is pursuing this legal battle. Instead of solely filing in federal district court for damages, Wahoo has also filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Why the ITC? There are several strategic advantages:
* Speed: The ITC generally resolves cases faster than traditional courts. This is particularly significant as JetBlack isn’t a U.S.-based company, meaning a federal court case could drag on for years.
* Absolute Bans: Unlike a court case that might result in licensing fees, the ITC can issue an order that entirely bans imports of the JetBlack Victory into the United States.
This is a game-changer. Wahoo isn’t just seeking compensation; it’s aiming to remove a competitor from the U.S. market entirely. This aggressive move suggests Wahoo believes a complete ban is a more valuable outcome than a royalty agreement.
What Does This Mean for You?
If you’
Keep reading