DCT
3:23-cv-00590
Domesick v. JD E Commerce America Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Michael H Domesick (Connecticut)
- Defendant: JD E-Commerce America Limited (Delaware); WalMart Inc. (Delaware); et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Michael H Domesick, Pro Se
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00590, D. Conn., 08/10/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Connecticut based on Defendants’ sale, distribution, and advertising of accused products within the district, subjecting them to personal jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ various plank exercise devices infringe three U.S. patents related to ergonomic exercise apparatuses and associated methods of use.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns exercise equipment designed to improve the comfort, stability, and ergonomics of the plank exercise, a widely performed core-strengthening workout.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff discovered infringing products in 2022 and subsequently sent over 1,000 infringement notices to Defendant WalMart Inc via its intellectual property reporting portal between September 2022 and March 2023. Plaintiff also alleges direct correspondence with representatives for WalMart Inc and Defendant Joybuy regarding the ongoing infringement prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-02-25 | Earliest Priority Date for ’245, ’364, and ’573 Patents |
| 2018-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,895,573 Issues |
| 2018-Late | Plaintiff launches ABMILL Plank Trainer product |
| 2019-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,286,245 Issues |
| 2022 | Plaintiff discovers allegedly infringing products |
| 2022-09-24 | Plaintiff begins sending infringement reports to WalMart Inc |
| 2022-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 Issues |
| 2023-08-10 | Second Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,286,245 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,286,245, "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods," issued May 14, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes discomfort and potential injury associated with conventional plank exercises, which concentrate a user’s body weight on the elbows. It also identifies shortcomings in existing devices, such as non-ergonomic handle grips that cause wrist strain and unrestricted sliding mechanisms that create a risk of overextension injuries (’245 Patent, col. 2:15-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a support apparatus featuring hand grips and separate forearm support pads connected by a frame. This design distributes the user's weight across both the hands and forearms, alleviating pressure on the elbows (’245 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-54). The apparatus is designed to be translationally static on the ground for stability, and the components are adjustable to accommodate different users, as illustrated in embodiments like Figure 4 (’245 Patent, col. 5:27-30).
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution aims to make the plank exercise safer and more comfortable by providing an adjustable, ergonomic, and stable platform that redirects biomechanical forces away from the user's elbow joints (’245 Patent, col. 6:56-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 16 and 19. Claim 19 includes the following essential elements:
- A frame with a grip area (comprising at least two grips) at a first end and an attachment portion at a second end.
- An arm support member with a padded portion and a ground-engaging portion, which couples to the frame's attachment portion.
- A configuration wherein the position of the grips or the arm support member is moveable.
- A ground interface surface that allows the apparatus to maintain a self-stabilized position in level contact with the ground.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶121).
U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364, "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods," issued November 8, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the related ’245 Patent, this patent addresses the ergonomic deficiencies and discomfort of performing planks on the floor, where body weight is concentrated on the elbows (’364 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
- The Patented Solution: This invention also provides an apparatus with arm support pads and hand grips but claims a more specific structural arrangement. The claims focus on a "frame member" extending from the front to the back of the apparatus, where at least a portion of this member has a "tubular shape". The arm pad attaches to this tubular portion, while the hand grip is disposed at the front end, creating a specific distal relationship between the pad and the grip for proper user form (’364 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:27-62).
- Technical Importance: The invention defines a particular geometric configuration for a plank trainer, emphasizing the structure of the frame and the relative placement of components to achieve ergonomic support.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10. Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- An arm support pad and a hand grip.
- A frame member that extends from proximate a front of the apparatus to proximate a back.
- At least one portion of the frame member has a tubular shape where the arm support pad is attached.
- The frame member has the hand grip at a first end and the arm support pad at a second end near the back.
- The hand grip is configured to contact the user's hand while the arm support pad is positioned distally from the hand grip.
- A contact surface for engaging a ground surface.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶141).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,895,573 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,895,573, "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods," issued February 20, 2018.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of using a plank support apparatus. The claimed method addresses the same ergonomic problems as the apparatus patents by reciting steps for using a device with forearm pads and hand grips. Key steps include providing such an apparatus, adjusting the spacing between the hand grips and forearm pads, and then positioning a user on the apparatus to perform the exercise (’573 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:1-8).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶160).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe by performing the claimed method steps and by inducing and contributing to infringement by end-users who follow instructions to use the accused devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶160-162).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: A variety of "planking devices" and "plank trainers" sold by the numerous defendants, including the Joybuy Defendants and WalMart Inc, through online marketplaces like Walmart.com (Compl. ¶¶2, 44-45). The complaint alleges these products replicate the features of Plaintiff's own "ABMILL Plank Trainer" (Compl. ¶¶40, 44).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are exercise devices designed for performing plank exercises (Compl. ¶2). Functionally, they are alleged to include a frame, two hand grips, and an arm support member with padding (Compl. ¶121). The complaint alleges that either the grips or the arm support can be moved or adjusted to accommodate the user's needs and that the devices have a surface to allow for stable, level contact with the ground (Compl. ¶121). The complaint characterizes the defendants, particularly the Joybuy Defendants, as major distributors of fitness equipment who have used their relationship with WalMart Inc to sell these products on a large scale (Compl. ¶¶42, 62, 71). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,286,245 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame having a grip area coupled to a first end and an attachment portion disposed on a second end, wherein the grip area comprises at least two grips; | The accused devices include a frame with a grip area containing at least two grips for the user's hands and a portion for attaching the arm support member. | ¶121 | col. 24:19-24 |
| an arm support member having a padded portion and a ground-engaging portion, wherein the arm support member couples to the attachment portion, | The accused devices include a padded arm support member that connects to the frame and has a portion that engages the ground. | ¶121 | col. 24:25-29 |
| and wherein a position of the at least two grips or the arm support member is moveable; | In the accused devices, either the grips or the arm support can be moved to different positions to accommodate the user. | ¶121 | col. 24:30-31 |
| a ground interface surface allowing the apparatus to maintain a self-stabilized position on the ground whereby when the apparatus is placed on the ground... | The accused devices include a surface that allows them to rest in a stable, level position when placed on a flat surface. | ¶121 | col. 24:32-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is the scope of "moveable." Does this term require a specific mechanism for adjustment (e.g., sliding, pop-pins), or does it broadly cover any form of repositioning, including disassembly and reassembly at different points? The interpretation of this term will be critical.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused devices' "arm support member" has a "ground-engaging portion" as required by the claim? Infringement may turn on whether the arm support itself, or a separate part of the device's base, makes contact with the ground.
U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an arm support pad; and a hand grip; | The accused devices are equipped with both an arm support pad and a hand grip for the user. | ¶141 | col. 5:27-30 |
| a frame member, extending from proximate a front of the apparatus to proximate a back of the apparatus, | The accused devices include a frame structure that extends from the front (grip area) to the back (pad area). | ¶141 | col. 5:31-35 |
| wherein at least one portion of the frame member has a tubular shape at which at least one portion of the arm support pad is attached; | The accused devices allegedly have a tubular frame portion to which the arm support pad is attached. | ¶141 | col. 5:48-52 |
| wherein the hand grip is configured to contact a hand of an arm of the user while the arm support pad is positioned distally from the hand grip in contact with the arm of the user; | The accused devices are configured so the user's hand is on the grip while the forearm rests on the pad located behind the hand. | ¶141 | col. 5:56-62 |
| a contact surface configured to engage a ground surface underneath the frame member or the arm support pad... | The accused devices have a surface designed to rest levelly on the ground to provide stability. | ¶141 | col. 5:28-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the term "frame member" require a single, unitary component, or can it be construed to cover an assembly of multiple parts that collectively extend from front to back? The patent's own figures show a bifurcated frame, which may inform this interpretation.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the accused products having a "tubular shape" where the arm pad attaches. A factual dispute may arise over whether the specific cross-sectional geometry of the accused devices' frames meets this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’245 Patent:
- The Term: "moveable"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the adjustability feature of the apparatus. Its construction will be central to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from a static, non-adjustable device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused devices' adjustability meets this limitation, which will likely be a point of factual and legal dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple distinct ways to achieve adjustability, including a plurality of holes for repositioning components (’245 Patent, col. 7:62-65) and straps for securing components (’245 Patent, col. 9:10-15). This suggests the patentee envisioned "moveable" to encompass various adjustment mechanisms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of a preferred embodiment focuses on an "actuatable engagement device" with buttons and connectors that engage with holes (’245 Patent, col. 10:48-62). A defendant may argue that "moveable" should be construed more narrowly to require a specific type of integrated adjustment mechanism rather than simple disassembly and reassembly.
For the ’364 Patent:
- The Term: "frame member"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural element of the apparatus. Unlike the broader term "frame" in the ’245 patent, "frame member" suggests a more specific structure. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products' structures constitute the claimed "frame member".
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only "a frame member," which could be read in the singular to mean at least one such member, potentially allowing for multi-part frame assemblies to meet the limitation as long as they function as described.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent, such as FIG. 3 and FIG. 8, depict a unitary, bifurcated structure that acts as a single, cohesive frame member. A defendant could argue that this consistent depiction limits the term "frame member" to a single, integrated component, not an assembly of separate pieces.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by selling the accused devices with knowledge of the patents and with the intent that customers would use them in an infringing manner, citing marketing materials and product functions as evidence of encouragement (Compl. ¶¶124, 144, 164). WalMart Inc is specifically accused of inducing infringement by knowingly facilitating sales by third-party sellers on its platform (Compl. ¶125).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the patents prior to the lawsuit. The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent over 1,000 notices to WalMart Inc starting in September 2022 and engaged in direct communications with representatives for both WalMart Inc and Joybuy, but that Defendants continued their allegedly infringing sales activities despite these notices (Compl. ¶¶46, 48, 56, 94).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "moveable" in the ’245 patent be construed broadly to cover any form of product adjustability, and does the accused products' structure meet the more specific "frame member" limitation of the ’364 patent? The resolution of these construction questions will likely drive the infringement outcome.
- A key question of liability will be whether Plaintiff can pierce the complex corporate structure of the numerous online sellers to establish the specific knowledge and intent required for indirect and willful infringement against marketplace operators like WalMart Inc and major distributors like Joybuy. The allegations that WalMart Inc and Joybuy had direct notice and coordinated their response will be a central factual battleground in the case.