DCT
0:23-cv-60446
Victory Grips LLC v. Portugal
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Victory Grips LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Deceitful Strength LLC, Anthony Portugal, and Bridgette Portugal (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Armstrong Teasdale LLP; Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 0:23-cv-60446, S.D. Fla., 03/09/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the corporate defendant maintaining its principal place of business in the district and the individual defendants residing in the district. The complaint further alleges that all defendants regularly conduct business and have committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hybrid Pro Grips" exercise grips infringe a patent related to a specific ergonomic design for hand and wrist protection.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns hand-worn grips used in functional fitness and gymnastics to protect an athlete's hands from friction injuries while maintaining dexterity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent letters to Defendants on July 28, 2022, and August 11, 2022, providing notice of the asserted patent and the alleged infringement. Subsequent email communications are cited in which Defendant Anthony Portugal allegedly agreed to cease sales, but later resumed them. This pre-suit history is presented to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-03-12 | ’804 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-11-17 | ’804 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-07-28 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendants |
| 2022-08-11 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendants |
| 2022-08-17 | Defendant allegedly contacts Plaintiff's counsel regarding cessation of sales |
| 2022-12-03 | Defendants allegedly make Hybrid Pro Grips available for sale again |
| 2023-03-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,835,804 - “EXERCISE GRIP”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses injuries caused by friction when performing exercises on equipment such as horizontal bars or gymnastics rings (’804 Patent, col. 1:20-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a specifically-shaped exercise grip designed to protect the user's hand and wrist. As described in the specification and illustrated in figures, the grip features a protective portion with a unique geometry: a wide wrist end to cover the ulnar (pinky finger) side of the wrist, a narrower finger end, and a "concave shape" in between that creates a void to increase comfort and articulation while still protecting key areas of the palm (’804 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-41; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to provide targeted protection to areas most susceptible to injury while minimizing material in other areas to enhance flexibility and comfort during complex movements (’804 Patent, col. 4:35-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’804 Patent, col. 6:6-28; Compl. ¶30).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An exercise grip comprising a wrist strap and a protective portion.
- The protective portion has a wrist end and a finger end, with the wrist end being wider than the finger end.
- The wrist end is located between the wrist strap and a "particular location."
- The "particular location" is itself located between the wrist strap and a "narrowest part" of the protective portion.
- A portion of the wrist end is configured to cover an ulnar side of a hand.
- A side of the protective portion has a "concave shape" that defines a void, exposing the ulnar side of the hand at the "narrowest part."
- The complaint notes infringement of "one or more the claims... including at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "various sizes of exercise grips marketed as Hybrid Pro Grips" (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Hybrid Pro Grips are designed to "cover a portion of the wearer's palm as well as a portion of the front and side of the wearer's lower hand and wrist, while leaving the back of the hand exposed" (Compl. ¶7). An image from the defendants' website highlights features such as a "DIAMOND RUBBER EXTERIOR FOR MAXIMUM GRIP AND DURABILITY" and a "REINFORCED WRIST FOR COMFORT AND LONGEVITY," suggesting the product is positioned for performance and durability in the fitness market (Compl. p.3). The complaint also includes an image of an athlete using the grips, which purports to show the "Ulnar side of hand exposed" in a manner consistent with the patent's claims (Compl. p.14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'804 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An exercise grip, comprising: a wrist strap; and a protective portion that has a wrist end and a finger end... | The complaint identifies the accused Hybrid Pro Grips as having a wrist strap (labeled "A") and a protective portion (labeled "B") with a wrist end (labeled "C") and a finger end (labeled "D"), as shown in an annotated image. | ¶¶34-35 | col. 3:32-35 |
| the wrist end of the protective portion is located closer to the wrist strap than the finger end; | The complaint alleges the wrist end ("C") is positioned closer to the wrist strap ("A") than the finger end ("D"). | ¶36 | col. 3:33-35 |
| the finger end of the protective portion has a given width; a wrist end width of the wrist end is wider than the given width; | The complaint alleges the width of the wrist end ("F") is wider than the "given width" of the finger end ("E"), illustrating this with a comparative graphic. | ¶¶37-38 | col. 4:26-32 |
| the wrist end is between the wrist strap and a particular location; the particular location is between the wrist strap and a narrowest part of the protective portion; | The complaint alleges the wrist end ("C") is between the strap ("A") and a "particular location" ("G"), and that this "particular location" ("G") is between the strap ("A") and a "narrowest part" ("H"). The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused product to identify these allegedly corresponding sections (Compl. p.13). | ¶¶39-40 | col. 6:15-17 |
| a portion of the wrist end located between the wrist strap and the particular location is configured to cover an ulnar side of a hand; | The complaint alleges a portion of the wrist end (labeled "I") is located in the claimed region and is configured to cover an ulnar side of the hand. | ¶41 | col. 4:28-29 |
| the narrowest part of the protective portion is between the finger end and the wrist end; and | The complaint alleges the narrowest part ("H") is located between the finger end ("D") and the wrist end ("C"). | ¶42 | col. 4:38-39 |
| a side of the protective portion between the wrist end and the finger end has a concave shape defining a void that exposes the ulnar side of the hand at the narrowest part... | The complaint alleges that a side of the protective portion has a concave shape (labeled "J") that defines a void, exposing the ulnar side of the hand at the narrowest part of the product. An image of an athlete using the product is provided to illustrate this exposed area during use (Compl. p.14). | ¶43 | col. 6:23-28 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of the terms "particular location" and "narrowest part." These terms are defined in the claim relative to other parts of the grip but are not explicitly defined with standalone definitions in the specification. The dispute will likely focus on whether these terms are sufficiently definite and how their boundaries are determined on the physical shape of the accused product.
- Technical Questions: A central question is whether the geometry of the accused Hybrid Pro Grips, as a matter of fact, possesses the distinct and relationally-defined zones required by claim 1. The complaint's annotated image (Compl. p.13) presents Plaintiff's theory, but Defendants may argue that the product has a different shape that does not meet these specific structural limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"particular location"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it establishes a boundary for two other limitations: the location of the wrist end and the portion that covers the ulnar side of the hand. The entire infringement theory depends on whether the accused product has an area that can be identified as this "particular location" in relation to the wrist strap and the "narrowest part." Practitioners may focus on this term as its construction could be case-dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a region that satisfies the relational requirements of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be interpreted in light of the patent's figures and the stated purpose of covering the "ulnar side of a wrist" (’804 Patent, col. 4:28-29). This might tie the "location" to a more specific anatomical or structural feature depicted in an embodiment, such as the point where the grip begins to widen asymmetrically (see ’804 Patent, Fig. 2).
"narrowest part of the protective portion"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the "waist" of the grip and is the anchor point for the "concave shape" and "void" limitations. The existence and location of a distinct "narrowest part" on the accused product is a prerequisite for infringement of several claim elements.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed as the point or region of minimum width located anywhere between the wrist end and the finger end. Plaintiff's annotated photo identifies such a region (Compl. p.13, label H).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "third width W3 that is smaller than the width W2" and is located "between the finger end and the wrist end," which provides an objective basis for its existence (’804 Patent, col. 4:31-39). A defendant might argue that an accused product with a continuous taper, rather than a distinct narrowed "waist," does not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis for this claim includes Defendants' alleged advertising, promotions, and instructions on how to use the Hybrid Pro Grips, which allegedly encourage customers to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶44).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful. This allegation is primarily based on Defendants having received actual notice of the '804 Patent and the infringement allegations via letters dated July 28, 2022, and August 11, 2022. The complaint further alleges that Defendants engaged in communications acknowledging the infringement allegations, represented that sales would be halted, and then subsequently resumed selling the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 8-15, 47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and definiteness: can the relative positional terms "particular location" and "narrowest part," which lack explicit definitions in the specification, be construed with enough clarity to be enforceable, and if so, what are their proper constructions?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: assuming a construction is reached, does the physical geometry of the accused "Hybrid Pro Grips" actually contain the specific, relationally-defined structural zones required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in shape?
- A third significant question will concern willfulness and damages: given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice, correspondence, and an alleged broken promise to cease infringement, the determination of willfulness could have a substantial impact on any potential damages award.