DCT
2:22-cv-01860
Bala Bangles Inc v. Ea Commerce LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bala Bangles Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ea Commerce LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kimura London & White LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-01860, C.D. Cal., 03/21/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant operates an Amazon storefront that specifically targets, offers to sell, and ships products to residents within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s weighted exercise bands infringe its design patent for a "Weighted Exercise Band."
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns wearable fitness accessories, a consumer product category where ornamental design and brand identity are significant market differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of its infringement claim by reporting it to Amazon over ten months before filing suit, and again via a formal cease-and-desist letter approximately two weeks before filing. Defendant’s alleged failure to respond to these notices may be used to support the claim for willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-01-01 | Bala weighted exercise band originally launched |
| 2018-01-01 | Bala began offering products on its website |
| 2018-03-22 | Priority date for the ’167 Patent |
| 2020-06-23 | ’167 Patent issued |
| 2021-05-12 | Plaintiff reported Defendant's infringement to Amazon |
| 2022-03-04 | Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-03-21 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 - “Weighted Exercise Band”
- Issued: June 23, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While the patent does not describe a technical problem, the complaint frames the context as creating a "unique" and "innovative design" for a weighted exercise band in the consumer fitness market (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 26).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a weighted exercise band (’167 Patent, Claim, col. 1:57-59). The design, depicted across nine figures, consists of the visual appearance of a series of elongated, solid blocks with rounded corners, arranged in a row. Key figures illustrate the design unrolled (FIG. 4) and in a fastened, circular configuration (FIG. 8). The strap portion of the band is depicted in broken lines, indicating it is not part of the claimed design (’167 Patent, col. 2:7-10).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the design has become "wildly popular" and is "uniquely signifying to consumers that the products come from Bala," suggesting the design has acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described."
- The essential visual elements of this claim are the ornamental features shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, which include:
- A series of individual, adjacently arranged blocks.
- Each block having an elongated, generally rectangular shape with rounded ends.
- The collective appearance of these blocks arranged in a linear fashion.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Weighted exercise bands sold by Defendant on its Amazon merchant storefront, identified under the brands "FOREVAFIT" and "HONEYCOMB FITNESS" (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 23; p. 6-7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are wearable weights used for exercise (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30). The complaint alleges that Defendant "intentionally deceives and misleads consumers" by selling products that use Plaintiff's design and are "nearly identical versions of the protected Bala design" (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 29). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused "FOREVA FIT" product, which shows it is packaged in a box with prominent branding (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegation centers on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, which the complaint explicitly references (Compl. ¶30). The complaint provides visual evidence to support its claim that the accused products are confusingly similar to the patented design. One such visual shows an exemplary image of the 'FOREVA FIT' product next to a figure from the ’167 Patent (Compl. p. 6).
’167 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products, sold under the "FOREVAFIT" and "HONEYCOMB FITNESS" brands, embody a design that is "nearly identical" to the one protected by the ’167 Patent, consisting of a series of elongated, rounded-edge blocks on a band, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. | ¶¶ 29, 30 | col. 1:57-59; FIGS. 1-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue will be the proper application of the "ordinary observer" test. The test requires comparing the accused product to the claimed design, not to the plaintiff's commercial product. The analysis must properly exclude the unclaimed elements of the design (the strap, shown in broken lines) and focus only on the visual impression created by the claimed elements (the weighted blocks).
- Technical Questions: The court will need to determine whether any minor differences in the proportion, spacing, or surface texture of the blocks on the accused products are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression from the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would not be confused.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations, so formal claim construction of specific terms is uncommon. The central interpretive issue is the visual scope of the design itself.
The "Term"
- The scope of the claimed ornamental design as defined by the solid lines in the patent figures.
Context and Importance
- The distinction between the claimed features (solid lines) and unclaimed environment (broken lines) is dispositive for the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the infringement test must be applied only to the features claimed in the patent—the ornamental appearance of the weighted blocks—and not to the overall product, which includes the unclaimed strap.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that an ordinary observer perceives the product as a whole, and the interaction between the claimed blocks and the unclaimed strap creates an overall visual impression that should be considered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides explicit, limiting language: "The broken lines shown in the drawings are for the purpose of illustrating portions of the weighted exercise band, which form no part of the claimed design" (’167 Patent, col. 2:7-10). This statement provides strong evidence that the infringement analysis must be strictly limited to the appearance of the weighted blocks alone.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was "deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶32). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’167 Patent through a report made to Amazon on May 12, 2021, and a formal cease-and-desist letter sent on March 4, 2022, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: when properly filtering out the unclaimed strap shown in broken lines, would an ordinary observer find the ornamental design of the accused products' weighted blocks to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’167 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of intent: do the allegations of pre-suit notice via Amazon and a cease-and-desist letter, followed by Defendant's alleged continued sales, rise to the level of egregious conduct required to support a finding of willful infringement and a potential award of enhanced damages?