DCT
2:22-cv-03086
Savvier Fitness LLC v. Hudsons Bay Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Savvier Fitness LLC (California)
- Defendant: Southern Telecom, Inc. (New York), et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Costalaw
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-03086, C.D. Cal., 05/06/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants ship, distribute, offer for sale, sell, and advertise the accused products within the judicial district, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Lomi" brand slider exercise discs infringe a patent related to a method and apparatus for fitness exercise.
- Technical Context: The technology involves low-friction discs used for sliding exercises, a category of fitness equipment designed to enhance strength, balance, and flexibility by requiring user stabilization during movement.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-05-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,011,294 |
| 2015-04-21 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,011,294 |
| 2022-05-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,011,294 - "Method and Apparatus for Fitness Exercise" (issued April 21, 2015)
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a fitness enhancement element that is inexpensive, portable, and adaptable to various environments. It notes that prior exercise aids often increase muscular force and resistance without a corresponding increase in flexibility, necessitating separate stretching routines (’294 Patent, col. 1:20-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "sliding element," typically a disc, upon which a user places a hand or foot to perform exercises on a floor ('294 Patent, Abstract). By reducing friction under a limb, the device requires complementary muscles to work harder to balance and stabilize the body, while simultaneously allowing for a greater range of motion that stretches ligaments and muscles during the strength exercise itself ('294 Patent, col. 4:38-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to combine strength, balance, and flexibility training into a unified set of exercises using a simple, portable device, thereby increasing the efficiency of a workout ('294 Patent, col. 5:1-7).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13, along with dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, and 19 (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an exercise device comprising:
- A sliding element no more than 12 inches in diameter
- An upper surface and an opposite lower surface
- The lower surface having an upturned circumferential rim, being smooth, and being flat and parallel to the exercise floor when at rest
- The upper surface having at least a portion that is textured
- The textured portion being located to permit the device to be "stably gripped substantially without slipping" by a portion of a human foot during use
- Independent Claim 13 recites a similar device, describing the structure in terms of a "down-facing side" and an "up-facing side," but requiring the same essential features of an upturned rim, a smooth and flat lower surface, and a textured upper surface for gripping by a foot.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the "Lomi Fitness 'Gliding Discs'" or "Lomi sliding discs" (Compl. ¶¶5, 18).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant Southern Telecom manufactures the accused "slider exercise discs" (Compl. ¶5). These products are allegedly sold online and in retail stores by the other named defendants, including Dick's Sporting Goods, Macy's, and Marshall's (Compl. ¶¶6-11, 18). The complaint describes the accused product as "near identical" to Plaintiff's own "Gliding discs" and used for performing exercises (Compl. ¶¶14, 18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement allegations are presented in narrative form.
'294 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An exercise device for exercising a human body on an exercise floor, said device comprising: a sliding element no more than 12 inches in any diameter... | The complaint alleges the "Lomi Fitness Gliding Disc" is a sliding disc product that infringes this claim. | ¶31 | col. 18:10-17 |
| said lower surface having an upturned circumferential rim about the entire periphery of said lower surface... | The complaint alleges the accused products are so similar to the claimed design as to be infringing. | ¶32 | col. 18:21-23 |
| the entirety of said lower surface from said center point to said peripheral rim, being smooth... | The complaint alleges the accused products are so similar to the claimed design as to be infringing. | ¶32 | col. 18:24-26 |
| said lower surface along the majority of any diameter from rim to rim through said center point being flat and parallel to said exercise floor when said exercise device is at rest on said exercise floor... | The complaint alleges the accused products are so similar to the claimed design as to be infringing. | ¶32 | col. 18:26-30 |
| at least a portion of said upper surface being textured with said textured portion of said upper surface being located to permit said exercise device to be stably gripped substantially without slipping by a portion of the bottom surface of an adult human foot... | The complaint alleges the accused products are so similar to the claimed design as to be infringing. | ¶32 | col. 18:30-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint asserts that the accused products "are so similar to the claimed design... that a purchaser... would be deceived" (Compl. ¶32). This phrasing mirrors the legal standard for design patent infringement, not utility patent infringement, which requires an element-by-element analysis. A primary point of contention may be whether the Plaintiff's theory of infringement aligns with the correct legal standard, or if it improperly relies on overall similarity.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence as to how the accused "Lomi" disc meets the technical limitations of the claims. This raises several questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused disc's lower surface is "flat and parallel" to the floor when at rest, as required by claim 1, rather than slightly convex? What is the specific nature of the "textur[ing]" on the accused product's upper surface, and does it function to allow a foot to "stably grip" it "without slipping" as the claim functionally requires?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "textured"
- Context and Importance: This term defines a key feature of the user-facing side of the device. The construction of "textured" and its associated functional language ("stably gripped substantially without slipping") will be critical to determining whether the surface of the accused product infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "textured" can encompass a variety of surface treatments, including "grit embedded in the plastic... a self-stick mesh-like material, or any other suitable roughing" ('294 Patent, col. 14:55-58).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and a preferred embodiment describe "small, round, indentations" in a decorative pattern ('294 Patent, col. 14:53-54, Fig. 37). A party could argue the term implies a deliberately engineered surface modification for grip, not merely a standard material finish.
- The Term: "flat and parallel to said exercise floor when said exercise device is at rest"
- Context and Importance: This geometric limitation on the sliding surface is precise and absolute. Whether the accused product, which may have manufacturing-related curvature, meets this limitation will be a central factual question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "flat and parallel" should be understood in the context of the device's function, allowing for minor, immaterial deviations from perfect flatness that do not prevent the device from sliding as intended.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is unambiguous. A party could argue that any measurable convexity or deviation from parallel means the limitation is not met, pointing to the patent's own disclosure of an alternative embodiment with a "slight bulge" as evidence that the patentee knew how to claim a non-flat surface if desired ('294 Patent, col. 14:5-7).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants contributed to and induced infringement (Compl. ¶19). The factual basis includes allegations of providing "instructions, support and services to customers who are infringing the Gliding disc Patent" (Compl. ¶25(6)).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "continuing acts of infringement constitute willful infringement" and that they acted "despite their knowledge of [the patent] and in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s Patent rights" (Compl. ¶¶27, 33). The complaint does not specify how or when Defendants allegedly became aware of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's lack of specific technical allegations, can the plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused "Lomi" disc meets every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific geometric ("flat and parallel") and surface-property ("textured," "smooth") requirements?
- A core issue will be one of infringement theory: will the plaintiff's case proceed on the legally required element-by-element infringement analysis for a utility patent, or will it continue to rely on the "deceived purchaser" and "so similar" rhetoric (Compl. ¶32) more appropriate for a design patent case, and how will the court address this potential disconnect?