DCT
2:19-cv-04425
BVP Holding Inc v. Zoovaa Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BVP Holding, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Zoovaa Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Zuber Lawler & Del Duca LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-04425, C.D. Cal., 05/22/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in California and maintains a regular and established place of business within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s air walker glider exercise machine infringes three patents related to exercise apparatuses that enable multi-directional movement.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns exercise equipment designed to move beyond simple, single-plane motions (like walking) to allow for multi-directional training that engages a wider range of muscles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the three patents-in-suit belong to the same patent family, which may suggest a common specification and a related prosecution history that could be relevant to claim construction. No other procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-23 | Priority Date for ’514, ’428, and ’410 Patents |
| 2010-05-25 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,722,514 |
| 2011-03-29 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,914,428 |
| 2014-10-14 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,858,410 |
| 2018-01-22 | Earliest mentioned date of public marketing for Accused Product (YouTube video) |
| 2019-05-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,722,514 - "Multi-Directional Body Swing, Turn and Twist Trainer with Interchangeable and Adjustable Attachments," issued May 25, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes existing swing-based fitness devices as being limited in their functionality because they only allow for movement along a fixed, arced path, simulating walking but failing to provide comprehensive training for the mid-section, hips, legs, and associated connective tissues (’514 Patent, col. 1:36-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise apparatus where foot platforms are suspended from an overhead frame using "hanging elements" (such as chains or cables) that are "adapted for moving in multiple directions, with two degrees of freedom in an X-Y plane." This design is intended to allow a user to move in multi-directional patterns, breaking free from the single-plane limitation of prior art devices (’514 Patent, col. 3:5-10; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a form of exercise that more closely mimics the multi-planar movements of daily life and sports, providing more functional training for strength, balance, and coordination (’514 Patent, col. 1:24-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Essential elements of Claim 1:
- a main frame including: a) a holding bar providing two or more connecting points; and b) at least one support bar, connected to the holding bar, for attaching said holding bar to a supporting fixture to maintain the holding bar in a substantially horizontal configuration;
- two foot platforms adapted to be attached to and hang from said holding bar in substantially parallel side by side arrangement, each of said foot platforms being adapted for movement in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane with at least two degrees of freedom; and
- at least one elongate hanging member, connecting each of said foot platforms to at least one of said connecting points on said holding bar, allowing said movement of said foot platforms in said X-Y plane with said at least two degrees of freedom.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,914,428 - "Multi-Directional Body Swing, Turn and Twist Trainer with Interchangeable and Adjustable Attachments," issued March 29, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the '514 Patent, the '428 patent addresses the same technical problem: the functional limitations of exercise devices that restrict user movement to a single, arced path (’428 Patent, col. 1:36-51).
- The Patented Solution: The '428 Patent describes a similar solution involving an exercise apparatus with foot platforms suspended by hanging members. The key distinction is the use of the broader term "a support" for the overhead structure, from which the platforms hang to allow for movement in a horizontal X-Y plane with at least two degrees of freedom (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-61).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a means for multi-directional and multi-planar training of the body, which the patent asserts is not offered by existing fitness devices (’428 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Essential elements of Claim 1:
- a support including two or more connecting points;
- two elongate foot platforms adapted to be attached to and hang from said connecting points in substantially parallel side by side arrangement, each of said foot platforms being adapted for movement in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane with at least two degrees of freedom; and
- an at least one elongate hanging member, connecting each of said foot platforms to at least one of said connecting points support, allowing said movement of said foot platforms in said X-Y plane with said at least two degrees of freedom.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,858,410
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,858,410, "Multi-Directional Body Swing Trainer with Interchangeable and Adjustable Attachments," issued October 14, 2014 (Compl. ¶13).
- Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same patent family, the '410 Patent describes an exercise apparatus that overcomes the single-plane motion of prior art swing trainers. The invention comprises foot platforms suspended from a support structure, allowing for multi-directional movement to provide a more comprehensive, functional workout for the user's lower body, mid-section, and connective tissues (’410 Patent, col. 1:27-41).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 74 and 76 (Compl. ¶29).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused product's overall structure, including its support frame and suspended foot platforms that permit multi-directional movement, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶¶30-35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The EFitment E020 Air Walker Glider and "materially similar exercise equipment" sold by Defendant ZooVaa (Compl. ¶18).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Product is an exercise machine that allows a user's legs to swing. The complaint alleges that, unlike a traditional elliptical machine, the product allows for both forward-and-back "elliptical moves" and a "side sway action," which allegedly enables movement with "180 degrees of free range of motion" (Compl. ¶21; Ex. E at p. 10). A photo provided in the complaint shows the product's ability to facilitate a "side sway action" by pushing the foot pads outward (Compl. p. 10). The complaint cites the product's availability on Defendant's website but provides no further details on its market positioning or commercial importance (Compl. ¶21; Ex. E).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’514 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a main frame including: a) a holding bar providing two or more connecting points; | The complaint identifies two exposed "holding bars" on the Accused Product to which other components connect. A photograph shows these internal bars (Compl. p. 7). | ¶19 | col. 2:62-63 |
| and b) at least one support bar, connected to the holding bar, for attaching said holding bar to a supporting fixture to maintain the holding bar in a substantially horizontal configuration; | The complaint identifies a "support bar" and a "supporting fixture" (comprising the main frame, stabilizers, and support tube) that collectively hold the "holding bar" in place. A diagram from the user manual highlights these components (Compl. p. 9). | ¶20 | col. 2:63-65 |
| two foot platforms adapted to be attached to and hang from said holding bar... each of said foot platforms being adapted for movement in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane with at least two degrees of freedom; | The complaint points to the product's two foot pads, alleging they move not only forward/backward but also side-to-side, providing "180 FREE-MOTION." Marketing images illustrate both elliptical and side-sway movements (Compl. p. 10). | ¶21 | col. 3:5-10 |
| and at least one elongate hanging member, connecting each of said foot platforms to at least one of said connecting points on said holding bar, allowing said movement... in said X-Y plane... | The complaint alleges that the "rear and front foot plate arms" function as the hanging members, connecting the pedals to the holding bar. A diagram highlights how the foot platforms hang from the holding bars via these arms (Compl. p. 11). | ¶22 | col. 3:11-15 |
’428 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support including two or more connecting points; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product has a support structure with connecting points, referencing the same evidence as for the '514 patent's "main frame." A photograph displays the "connecting points" where components couple to the "holding bar" (Compl. p. 7). | ¶25, ¶19-20 | col. 2:54-55 |
| two elongate foot platforms adapted to be attached to and hang from said connecting points... each of said foot platforms being adapted for movement in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane with at least two degrees of freedom; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's foot pads meet this limitation, referencing the "side sway action" and "180 FREE-MOTION" marketing descriptions, as described in Section III. | ¶26, ¶21 | col. 2:56-61 |
| and an at least one elongate hanging member, connecting each of said foot platforms to at least one of said connecting points support, allowing said movement... in said X-Y plane... | The complaint alleges the "rear and front foot plate arms" meet this limitation, referencing the user manual diagrams showing these arms connecting the pedals to the overhead support. | ¶27, ¶22 | col. 2:61-66 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the '514 Patent will be whether the Accused Product's frame can be mapped to the claim's specific structure of a "holding bar" and a separate "support bar." The complaint's own exhibits (Compl. p. 9) identify a collection of components as the "supporting fixture," which may raise the question of whether a single, identifiable "support bar" exists as claimed. The '428 and '410 patents use the broader term "support," which may be less vulnerable to this line of argument.
- Technical Questions: The core technical question is whether the motion of the Accused Product's foot platforms qualifies as movement "in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane." The complaint relies on marketing language like "side sway action." A court will need to examine the actual kinematics of the device to determine if it achieves true planar motion or a compound arc that falls outside the claim's scope, and how "substantially" should be interpreted in this context.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "support" (from '428 Claim 1, '410 Claims 74 & 76)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the entire overhead structure from which the exercise components hang. Its construction is critical because the '428 and '410 patents use this broader term in place of the more detailed "main frame" structure recited in the '514 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if its scope is broad enough to unambiguously cover the accused frame or if it is limited by the specification's embodiments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the mounting support "can be a wall, or a separate stand, or any supporting frame," suggesting the term is not limited to a specific structure (’514 Patent, col. 3:2-4).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the support as either a C-shaped bar or a purpose-built stand from which elements hang directly overhead (’514 Patent, Figs. 1a, 5a). A defendant may argue these embodiments limit the term to structures that function in a similar manner.
The Term: "adapted for movement in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane with at least two degrees of freedom" (from all asserted claims)
- Context and Importance: This functional language captures the novel, multi-directional capability of the invention and is the primary basis for the infringement allegation. The case may turn on whether the accused product's motion meets this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background contrasts the invention with prior art that is "limited in their functionality" to a single "arced path," and the objective is to train the body in "multi-directional patterns" for "better strength, mobility, flexibility" (’514 Patent, col. 1:36-40, col. 3:7-8). This purpose-oriented language could support an interpretation that covers any device achieving this multi-directional result.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated explicit contrast with an "arced path" could support an argument that any device whose motion is fundamentally defined by pivots and arcs, even compound ones, does not move in an "X-Y plane." A defendant may argue that "substantially" cannot be used to erase this fundamental distinction in the principle of operation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (induced or contributory) and focuses its allegations exclusively on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 24, 29).
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests treble damages for willful infringement and a finding of an exceptional case (Compl. p. 15, ¶¶ D, E). However, the complaint body does not plead any specific facts to support a claim of willfulness, such as alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: For the '514 Patent, does the accused glider's frame contain the specific "holding bar" and "support bar" structure as claimed, or is there a mismatch? For the '428 and '410 patents, can the broader term "support" be construed to read on the accused product's frame, or will it be limited by the embodiments shown in the patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused product's "side sway action," which is based on pivoting arms, result in movement "in a substantially horizontal X-Y plane" as required by the claims, or does it produce a compound arc that is technically distinct from the claimed planar motion? This question will likely require expert testimony on the kinematics of the accused device versus the invention described in the patents.