DCT

2:23-cv-02163

Savvier Fitness LLC v. SuperSpeed LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02163, C.D. Cal., 03/23/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including offers for sale and sales of the accused products, occurred within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ portable exercise barres infringe two patents related to a foldable barre device that incorporates attachable weights for improved stability.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of portable fitness equipment, where the challenge is to create devices that are both lightweight for transport and stable enough for a wide range of exercises.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit were assigned to the Plaintiff by the inventor, Jeff Tuller. The complaint also includes allegations of unfair competition, asserting that Defendants falsified customs documents to gain a competitive advantage by paying lower import duties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-10-11 '313 and '684 Patents Priority Date
2020-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,821,313 Issues
2022-07-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,389,684 Issues
2023-03-23 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,821,313 - "PORTABLE BARRE EXERCISE DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional lightweight, portable barre devices are prone to tipping or toppling over when a user performs pushing or pulling exercises against them, limiting their utility. (’313 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable and foldable barre device designed with integrated weight-holding structures. As described in the detailed description, the device includes brackets specifically adapted to hold hand weights, such as dumbbells, near its base. (’313 Patent, col. 5:1-11). This added weight is positioned to create a "leveraging moment" that stabilizes the device, preventing it from toppling and allowing the user to safely perform a wider range of exercises. (’313 Patent, col. 5:2-11).
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to combine the portability of a lightweight frame with the stability typically found only in heavier, permanently installed gym equipment. (’313 Patent, col. 4:52-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 5-11, 13, and 14. (Compl. ¶27).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A pair of legs with proximal and distal ends.
    • A pair of support arms pivotally attached at their proximal ends to the proximal ends of the legs.
    • A horizontal exercise bar mounted between the distal ends of the support arms.
    • A "weight stack" attached to each of the proximal ends of the support arms.
    • Each weight stack includes a "bracket adapted to support one or more hand weights therein."

U.S. Patent No. 11,389,684 - "PORTABLE BARRE EXERCISE DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with its parent patent, the ’684 Patent addresses the instability of conventional portable barre devices, which tend to "tip or topple over" during pushing or pulling exercises due to their light weight. (’684 Patent, col. 2:3-12).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent also discloses a barre device stabilized by attachable weights. The claims, however, focus on a specific combination of structural elements for achieving stability. The invention as claimed combines a floor-contacting "supporting structure" with "a pair of brackets" to hold hand weights and "a pair of gusset rods" that connect the device's arms and legs to "lend stability and strength." (’684 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-63; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific structural configuration intended to create a robust yet portable exercise platform capable of withstanding forces from multiple directions. (’684 Patent, col. 4:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "all of the Claims" of the ’684 Patent. (Compl. ¶27). The patent contains independent claims 1, 9, 13, and 17.
  • Representative Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A horizontal barre exercise bar elevated by a "supporting structure" in contact with the floor.
    • A pair of "brackets" attached to the supporting structure, adapted to support hand weights to counterbalance and stabilize the device.
    • The supporting structure further includes "a pair of gusset rods" connected between the arms and legs of the structure, which are "configured to lend stability and strength."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as the "Seleware/Kipika's 'Exercise Barre'". (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are "near identical" to the plaintiff's own "Booty Kicker" product, which embodies the patented technology. (Compl. ¶9, 32). The products are allegedly imported from China and sold online through retailers including Amazon. (Compl. ¶11, 13). The complaint does not contain independent technical descriptions or visual representations of the accused products' structure or operation. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations. The core infringement theory is that the accused exercise barres are "near identical" copies that embody the patented inventions. (Compl. ¶9, 11, 28). The analysis below is based on this general allegation.

'313 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the accused product meets each limitation of Claim 1. The central question for the court will be whether discovery reveals that the accused "Exercise Barre" possesses a structure corresponding to each element of the asserted claims, particularly the "weight stack" with a "bracket adapted to support one or more hand weights" located at the proximal ends of the support arms. (Compl. ¶27; ’313 Patent, col. 8:6-10).

'684 Patent Infringement Allegations

Similarly, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an element-by-element analysis. The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the accused product infringes all claims. (Compl. ¶27). This raises the factual question of whether the accused product's "supporting structure" includes both the claimed "pair of brackets" for holding weights and the claimed "pair of gusset rods" configured to provide stability, as required by independent Claim 1. (’684 Patent, col. 7:4-14).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The primary question is evidentiary: what is the actual construction of the accused Seleware/Kipika exercise barre? The case will depend on whether the accused product is found to incorporate the specific structural features recited in the claims of the ’313 and ’684 patents.
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused product's weight-holding feature, if any, meets the definition of a "weight stack" including a "bracket" as claimed in the ’313 Patent, and whether any reinforcing members meet the definition of the "gusset rods" as claimed in the ’684 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "weight stack" (’313 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’313 Patent’s point of novelty, as it describes the feature providing the stabilizing leverage. Its construction will determine what type of weight-holding mechanism can be found to infringe.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the device may include "an optional weight stack comprised of a pair of brackets 115 for holding a stack 121 of hand weights, such as dumbbells." (’313 Patent, col. 4:66-col. 5:2). A party could argue "weight stack" should be construed broadly as any feature that holds one or more weights in a "stack."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description consistently depict a specific type of bracket (115) that holds multiple, separate dumbbells. (’313 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 5:1-3). A party could argue the term is limited to this disclosed embodiment, which holds weights in a discrete, stacked arrangement, rather than covering any form of weight attachment.

  • The Term: "gusset rod" (’684 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This structural element is a required limitation in several claims of the ’684 Patent. Infringement of those claims will hinge on whether the accused product contains a structure that meets the definition of a "gusset rod."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the gusset rods' function as lending "significant stability and strength to device 100." (’684 Patent, col. 5:4-6). This functional language could support an interpretation that covers any rod-like brace connecting the specified components to provide reinforcement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific geometric description, stating that a "distal end of each gusset rod 106 may extend rearward and downward along a diagonal plane so as to be connected to a midway point on a corresponding leg." (’684 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:2). This could support a narrower construction requiring this specific orientation and connection geometry.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants knowingly provide components for practicing the invention and provide "instructions, support and services to customers who are Purchasing the Infringing Product." (Compl. ¶17, 18).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants continued to infringe "despite their knowledge" of the patents and in "reckless disregard" for Plaintiff's rights, and that these "continuing acts" constitute willful infringement. (Compl. ¶19, 29). The complaint does not specify the basis for the alleged pre-suit knowledge.

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

  1. An Evidentiary Question of Structure: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, a threshold issue for the court will be establishing the precise physical structure of the accused "Seleware/Kipika Exercise Barre." The case will turn on whether discovery uncovers evidence that the accused product contains structures that map onto the specific claim limitations, such as the "weight stack" with "brackets" and the stabilizing "gusset rods."

  2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The dispute may center on claim construction. A core issue will be whether the term "weight stack," as used in the ’313 Patent, is limited to the specific multi-dumbbell bracket shown in the patent's figures, or if it can be construed more broadly to read on other means of attaching weights for stability. The outcome of this question could be dispositive for infringement of the ’313 Patent.

  3. A Question of Combined Elements: For the ’684 Patent, a key point of analysis will be whether the accused product includes the combination of both a weight-holding "bracket" and the structurally distinct "gusset rod." Infringement will depend not just on the presence of individual features, but on whether the accused product incorporates the specific claimed assembly of those features.