DCT

2:10-cv-00397

Ab Coaster Holdings Inc v. Greene

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00397, C.D. Cal., 02/22/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants offered the accused products for sale within the district through internet websites such as ebay.com and craigslist.com, and because a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to the complaint occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ counterfeit abdominal exercise machines infringe six patents related to the design and function of a sliding carriage-based exercise device.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to personal fitness equipment, specifically devices for abdominal exercises that utilize a guided motion path to isolate muscles and reduce strain on the back and neck compared to traditional exercises.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants on November 12, 2009. It further alleges that Defendants subsequently filed their own lawsuit against Plaintiff in the Southern District of Ohio on January 13, 2010, prior to the filing of the present action. The complaint also references letters from U.S. Customs, suggesting potential seizure of imported goods.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,611,445
2005-11-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,455,633; 7,485,079; 7,585,263
2007-03-01 Plaintiff's first use in commerce of AB COASTER trademarks alleged
2007-05-29 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D565,134
2008-03-21 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D584,367
2008-03-25 Issue Date of U.S. Design Patent No. D565,134
2008-11-25 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,455,633
2008-12-01 Plaintiff allegedly becomes aware of infringing sales
2009-01-06 Issue Date of U.S. Design Patent No. D584,367
2009-02-03 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,485,079
2009-09-08 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,585,263
2009-11-03 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,611,445
2009-11-12 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendants
2010-01-13 Defendants file suit against Plaintiff in S.D. Ohio
2010-02-22 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,455,633 - "Abdominal Exerciser Device"

  • Issued: November 25, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional abdominal exercises like sit-ups as causing "overload to the spine and neck," while other exercises such as leg raises are strenuous on the lower back and offer minimal support ( ’633 Patent, col. 1:23-49). Existing exercise machines are described as providing insufficient resistance or being difficult and dangerous to use ('633 Patent, col. 1:53-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise device where the user places their lower legs on a "sled" that slides along at least one "arcuate track." The user stabilizes their upper body by holding onto a fixed support structure. The exercise motion involves using the abdominal muscles to pull the sled and knees towards the upper body, simulating a "crunch" motion in a biomechanically neutral position that minimizes back and neck strain (’633 Patent, col. 2:22-37, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to isolate abdominal and oblique muscles more effectively and safely than prior art exercises by guiding the user's lower body through a controlled, curved path of motion. (’633 Patent, col. 3:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but makes a general allegation of infringement. Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A rear support.
    • At least one arcuate track attached to the rear support.
    • A front support attached to the front portion of the track that elevates it "at least approximately 6 inches off the ground."
    • An upper body support attached to the front of the track, comprising an elevation bar and at least one handle.
    • A sled that can slide on the track.

U.S. Patent No. 7,485,079 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

  • Issued: February 3, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’633 Patent, this patent addresses the ergonomic and efficacy problems of traditional abdominal exercises, such as back strain and insufficient muscle isolation (’079 Patent, col. 1:23-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an exercise machine with a frame, a sled for the user's knees or legs, and a fixed upper body support. The core of this patented solution is the specific geometry of the "arcuate track" on which the sled slides, which is defined as having a "radius of curvature... approximately 12 inches to approximately 72 inches." This specific curvature is intended to create an optimal path for the exercise motion (’079 Patent, col. 13:8-15, FIG. 7C).
  • Technical Importance: By defining a specific range for the track's radius of curvature, the invention seeks to provide a biomechanically superior and adaptable exercise motion that can accommodate users of different sizes and provide a consistent workout (’079 Patent, col. 7:13-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A frame.
    • At least one arcuate track attached to the frame, having a radius of curvature of approximately 12 to 72 inches.
    • An upper body support mounted on the frame.
    • A sled that supports the user's knees or legs and slides along the track.

U.S. Patent No. 7,585,263 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

  • Issued: September 8, 2009

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes an abdominal exercise machine that generates an arcuate motion path without a physical track. It utilizes a carriage connected to the frame via first and second non-parallel "swing-arms," which guide the carriage through a curved path as the user performs the exercise (’263 Patent, col. 2:25-30). This design seeks to provide the benefits of a guided crunch motion while employing an alternative mechanical structure.

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify asserted claims.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the "counterfeit Ab Coaster device" of infringement, alleging it is "identical in nearly every minute detail" to the authentic product which embodies the patent's technology (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 7,611,445 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

  • Issued: November 3, 2009

Technology Synopsis

This patent also relates to an exercise machine using a carriage that moves along an arcuate path, supported by a swing assembly. The claims focus on the combination of the frame, the carriage, the upper body support, and the specific orientation of the components to target abdominal muscles while the user is in an angled, forward-leaning position (’445 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify asserted claims.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the "counterfeit Ab Coaster device" of infringement based on its alleged near-identical structure to Plaintiff's commercial embodiment (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

U.S. Design Patent No. D565,134 - "Abdominal Exercise Device"

  • Issued: March 25, 2008

Technology Synopsis

This design patent protects the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an abdominal exercise device. The figures depict a device with a prominent curved track, a sliding knee carriage, and a T-shaped upper body support with handlebars.

Asserted Claims

The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an abdominal exercise device, as shown and described."

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the overall appearance of the "counterfeit Ab Coaster device" of infringing the patented design (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

U.S. Design Patent No. D584,367 - "Abdominal Exercise Device"

  • Issued: January 6, 2009

Technology Synopsis

This design patent protects the ornamental appearance of an alternative design for an abdominal exercise device. The design features a frame where the support legs and arcuate track appear as a more integrated, flowing structure, distinguishing its look from other versions.

Asserted Claims

The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a abdominal exercise device, as shown and described."

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the overall appearance of the "counterfeit Ab Coaster device" of infringing this ornamental design (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as "counterfeit 'Ab Coaster' machines" and the "counterfeit Ab Coaster device" (Compl. ¶16, ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused devices are abdominal exercise machines that are "identical in nearly every minute detail to the authentic Ab Coaster® device that is protected by the foregoing patents" (Compl. ¶18).
  • The complaint alleges that defendants Zheijiang Meier and Zhejiang Yongkang manufactured and exported the devices from China, and that other defendants imported, offered for sale, and sold them in the United States through internet websites including ebay.com and craigslist.com (Compl. ¶16-17, ¶21).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of claim elements to the accused product. Its infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused product is "identical in nearly every minute detail" to the authentic Ab Coaster® device (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent No. 7,455,633 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a rear support The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes a rear support. ¶18 col. 3:26-31
at least one arcuate track having a front portion and a back portion wherein the back portion is attached to the rear support The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes at least one arcuate track with the specified attachments. ¶18 col. 3:32-49
a front support wherein the front support is attached to the front portion of the at least one track and elevates the front portion... at least approximately 6 inches off the ground The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes a front support that elevates the track by the claimed amount. ¶18 col. 3:50-54
an upper body support... comprises an elevation bar attached to the at least one track and at least one handle attached to the elevation bar The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes an upper body support with an elevation bar and handle. ¶18 col. 4:32-37
a sled that can slide on the at least one track The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes a sled that slides on the track. ¶18 col. 3:15-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central dispute will be factual: is the accused device structurally identical to a commercial embodiment of the '633 Patent, and does that structure meet every limitation of the asserted claims? The defense may focus on any structural differences, however minor, that could place the accused device outside the literal scope of the claims.
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention is the construction of "at least approximately 6 inches off the ground." The parties may dispute what range of heights falls within the scope of "approximately" and how that height is to be measured, which could be critical for determining literal infringement.

U.S. Patent No. 7,485,079 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a frame The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes a frame. ¶18 col. 13:5-7
at least one arcuate track attached to the frame... wherein the radius of curvature is approximately 12 inches to approximately 72 inches The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes an arcuate track with a radius of curvature within the claimed range. ¶18 col. 7:13-20
an upper body support that supports a user's upper body... mounted on the frame The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes an upper body support mounted on the frame. ¶18 col. 8:31-33
a sled that supports a user's knees or legs and slides along the at least one arcuate track The counterfeit device is alleged to be identical to the patented device and therefore includes a sled that slides on the track. ¶18 col. 8:9-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused device's track has a "radius of curvature" that falls within the claimed range. This may require expert analysis and physical measurement, especially if the track's curve is not a perfect circular arc.
    • Scope Questions: The term "approximately" will be a central point of claim construction. The court will need to determine the scope of this term, which will directly impact whether a device with a curvature near, but not exactly within, the 12-72 inch range infringes.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "arcuate track" (from '633 Patent, claim 1 and '079 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the structure and function of the invention. The infringement analysis for both utility patents depends on the accused device having a track that meets this definition. A defendant could seek to avoid infringement by arguing its product's track is not "arcuate," for instance if it contains straight sections or a series of joined segments rather than a smooth curve.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’633 Patent states that the "curvature can be circular, ellipsoid, parabolic, or any other curved shape that advantageously affects the abdominal and oblique muscles," which may support a broad definition covering any non-linear path (’633 Patent, col. 3:45-49).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments and figures in both patents consistently show a smooth, continuous curve (e.g., ’633 Patent, FIG. 5A). A party could argue that, in the context of the invention's goal of a smooth exercise motion, the term should be limited to such continuous curves and not read on tracks with sharp angles or disjointed segments.
  • The Term: "approximately" (from '079 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term modifies the numerical range for the track's radius of curvature ("approximately 12 inches to approximately 72 inches"). The infringement determination for the ’079 Patent could hinge entirely on the scope afforded to this word. Practitioners may focus on this term because it introduces ambiguity into an otherwise precise numerical limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the radius of curvature range is designed to "accommodate users of different sizes" ('079 Patent, col. 7:16-20). This functional language suggests that "approximately" should be interpreted to include any curvature that serves this purpose, even if slightly outside the literal 12-72 inch bounds.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term renders the claim indefinite. Alternatively, a party could point to more specific ranges disclosed in the specification, such as "approximately 18 inches to approximately 48 inches" ('079 Patent, col. 7:20-22), to argue that "approximately" was intended to cover only minor deviations from the patent's preferred embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests an injunction preventing Defendants from "inducing or enabling any other to commit any of the foregoing wrongs" (Compl. p. 19, ¶11(f)). The factual allegations that Chinese defendants manufactured and exported the devices for resale in the U.S. by other defendants could form the basis for an inducement theory (Compl. ¶16, ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly alleges that Defendants' infringing acts "have been with the full knowledge of Ab Coaster Holdings' rights and interests, thereby constituting willful patent infringement" (Compl. ¶26). This allegation is based on Defendants' alleged marketing of the accused devices under Plaintiff's trademarks, their alleged near-identical copying of the product, and their alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving a cease and desist letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶18-20).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the infringement case is predicated on the allegation that the accused devices are "identical in nearly every minute detail" to the patented product, the case will likely turn on factual evidence demonstrating the precise structural and geometric characteristics of the accused devices and whether they meet every limitation of the asserted claims, including specific numerical ranges for track curvature and elevation.
  • A second key question will be one of scope of liability: Given the number of defendants, including alleged foreign manufacturers and domestic resellers, a central issue will be whether Plaintiff can establish the necessary legal relationships (e.g., agency, alter ego) to hold all parties jointly and severally liable for the alleged infringement and related acts of unfair competition.
  • Finally, the case raises a question of claim construction and definiteness: The dispute over the scope of the term "approximately" in the context of a specific numerical range for the track's radius of curvature will be critical. The court's interpretation of this term could be dispositive of infringement for at least U.S. Patent No. 7,485,079.