DCT
2:19-cv-04505
Intellibrands LLC v. Jobar Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intellibrands, LLC & The Brand Group, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Jobar International, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-04505, S.D. Fla., 04/04/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant sells infringing products to consumers in the state, purposefully directs infringing activities toward Florida residents, and derives substantial revenue from those activities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Circulation Leg Exerciser" product infringes a patent related to a motorized, passive leg exercise assembly for seated users.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, automated exercise devices designed to improve circulation and provide leg muscle activity for individuals who are seated for prolonged periods, addressing a market need for accessible, in-home therapeutic solutions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs directly complained to Defendant about the infringement on numerous occasions prior to filing the lawsuit. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, the patent-in-suit underwent an ex parte reexamination, which concluded with a certificate issued on September 17, 2020, confirming the patentability of all original claims (1-2). This procedural event may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity against arguments that could have been raised during the reexamination.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,550,963 Priority Date |
| 2013-10-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,550,963 Issue Date |
| 2019-04-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-09-17 | Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 8,550,963 Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,550,963 - "Leg Exercise Assembly"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8550963, "Leg Exercise Assembly," issued October 8, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the health problems associated with physical inactivity, particularly for individuals in sedentary work or domestic environments. It notes that traditional exercise options can be limited by factors like cost, logistics, or weather (’963 Patent, col. 1:18-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable exercise assembly designed for use while seated. It features two foot supports ("pedals") that are moved by a motor through a drive linkage. The core innovation is the cooperative structure of the components, which forces the foot supports into a "linear, oppositely directed, reciprocal travel" to mimic the motion of walking, thereby exercising the user's legs and feet (’963 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-62).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a low-impact, passive exercise method that can be used conveniently at a desk or in a living room, targeting a need for accessible health maintenance for aging or sedentary populations (’963 Patent, col. 1:53-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "numerous claims," which, given the patent contains only two claims (one independent, one dependent), points to assertion of the entire patent (’963 Patent, col. 14:30-57; Compl. ¶23). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
- Independent Claim 1:
- An assembly structured to facilitate exercise of the legs of a user while in an at least partially seated orientation.
- It comprises a base and a drive motor mounted on the base.
- It includes at least two support members (pedals) structured to movably support a different foot of the user.
- It has at least one drive member connected to the drive motor.
- It includes a drive linkage with a cam assembly driven by the drive motor.
- It has a connector structure with at least two cam races, each on a different support member, which receive the cam assembly.
- The cam assembly includes at least two cam members, each driving a different cam race.
- The entire structure is cooperatively disposed to create "linear, oppositely directed, reciprocal travel" of the two support members upon motor actuation.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Circulation Leg Exerciser," also marketed under similar names like "Motorized Circulation Leg and Foot Exerciser" and "Seated Walking & Lower Leg Exerciser" (Compl. ¶6, p. 7-8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a motorized device for seated individuals. A screenshot from the Defendant's website describes it as a "passive, motorized exerciser" that "gently circulates the feet back and forth in a walking-like motion" (Compl. p. 5). The complaint provides extensive evidence of the product being sold through numerous major online retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, HSN, and Sears, suggesting broad commercial distribution (Compl. ¶7, p. 5-11). For instance, a promotional image from a third-party catalog depicts a user in a chair with their feet on the device, which "slides your feet gently back & forth in a walking-like motion" (Compl. p. 9). The complaint alleges that the accused product is "in all material respects similar to the Legxercise product and 963 patent" and, based on a disassembly, that its "internal workings... identically mirrors the 963 patent" (Compl. ¶¶6, 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’963 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An assembly structured to facilitate exercise of the legs of a user while in an at least partially seated orientation | The accused product is marketed as a motorized exerciser for use "from the comfort of your chair" and is "Designed for prolonged sitters." | ¶5, p. 9 | col. 1:5-8 |
| at least two support members each disposed and structured to movably and at least partially support a different foot of the user | The accused product features two "foot plates that glide forward and backwards." A screenshot from an online retailer shows the "Motorized Circulation Leg and Foot Exerciser with Various Speeds" with two distinct pedals. | ¶5, p. 7 | col. 2:36-39 |
| a drive motor mounted on said base | The product is described as a "passive, motorized exerciser" and includes an adapter for power. | ¶5 | col. 2:25-30 |
| a drive linkage including a cam assembly disposed in driven relation to said drive motor | Plaintiff alleges that upon purchasing and disassembling the accused product, its "internal workings... identically mirrors the 963 patent." | ¶8, 24 | col. 6:7-16 |
| a connector structure including at least two cam races each disposed on and movable with a different one of said two support members in receiving, driven relation to said cam assembly | The allegation of identical internal workings implies the presence of these structures. The complaint does not provide specific visual evidence of the internal components. | ¶8, 24 | col. 6:17-29 |
| said cam assembly comprising at least two cam members each disposed in driving relation with a different one of said two cam races | The allegation of identical internal workings implies the presence of these structures. A visual from the PulseTV retailer describes "Electronic foot plates" that "glide back and forth from a seated position," which Plaintiff alleges is accomplished by the claimed mechanism. | ¶8, 24, p. 7 | col. 6:46-50 |
| said drive linkage and said connector structure cooperatively disposed and structured to establish linear, oppositely directed, reciprocal travel of said two support members | The accused product is consistently described as moving feet "back and forth in a walking-like motion," which the complaint maps to the claimed reciprocal travel. | ¶5, p. 9 | col. 6:50-57 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question will be whether the internal mechanism of the "Circulation Leg Exerciser" actually contains a "cam assembly," "cam races," and "cam members" as claimed. The complaint makes a strong allegation of identical internal workings based on a disassembly but provides no direct evidence, such as photographs of the disassembled product (Compl. ¶8, 24). The case may depend on Plaintiff's ability to prove this factual assertion.
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the Defendant may be "using the Plaintiffs' molds used to create the 963-patented Legxercise" (Compl. ¶8). If true, this would be powerful evidence of infringement. However, this raises a question of proof: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to substantiate this claim beyond visual similarity of the external housing?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "cam assembly"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the claimed mechanical linkage that converts the motor's action into the desired reciprocal leg motion. The definition of what constitutes a "cam assembly" will be critical, as infringement hinges on whether the accused device’s internal drive mechanism falls within that definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification discloses multiple, structurally different embodiments for achieving this function, including systems based on rotary gears (Fig. 2), a transverse shaft (Fig. 4A), and a worm gear (Fig. 7), which may lead to disputes over the term's proper scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "working components of the leg exercise assembly may vary, depending on which of the plurality of embodiments are utilized" (’963 Patent, col. 2:52-54). Plaintiff may argue this supports a broad construction covering any mechanism that uses a cam-like principle to achieve the claimed function, consistent with the various disclosed examples.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be limited to one of the specific configurations shown, such as the embodiment with "linking gears" and offset "cam members 38, 38"" (’963 Patent, col. 6:10-16). Alternatively, a defendant might argue that the term requires a specific type of interaction between a follower and a shaped surface that is not present in its device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encourag[es] infringement by third parties" by selling the products (Compl. ¶33). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the components of the accused device "are especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement" and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶27).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’963 patent due to "numerous" direct communications from the Plaintiffs to Defendant regarding the infringement (Compl. ¶11, 26). The continuation of sales despite these direct complaints is alleged to be willful (Compl. ¶31, 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff substantiate its claim that the internal mechanics of the accused device are "identically" or equivalently structured to the claimed "cam assembly" and "drive linkage"? The case may turn on the evidence produced from the alleged disassembly, particularly as no internal visuals are included in the complaint.
- The dispute will also involve a question of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "cam assembly"? The answer will determine whether the specific mechanism used in Defendant's product—once revealed—falls within the scope of the patent's claims, especially given the multiple embodiments disclosed in the specification.
- A key question for damages will be willfulness: The allegations of repeated, direct pre-suit notice, if proven, create a significant question of whether Defendant's continued sales constitute willful infringement, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages.