DCT
0:25-cv-61895
FMT IP LLC v. Waist Snatchers LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FMT IP LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Waist Snatchers LLC (Mississippi)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: 500law
- Case Identification: 0:25-cv-61895, S.D. Fla., 09/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant’s commission of infringing acts within the district, purposeful commercial sales to Florida customers, and maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s waist belts infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a "Fitness Belt."
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of fitness accessories, a competitive segment of the consumer health and wellness market where visual appearance and branding are significant drivers of purchasing decisions.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it acquired the patent-in-suit by assignment and subsequently provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement via intellectual property takedown requests submitted to e-commerce platforms prior to filing this lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-02-26 | ’320 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-03-20 | ’320 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-06-16 | ’320 Patent Assigned to Plaintiff FMT IP LLC |
| 2025-07-08 | Plaintiff began submitting infringement notices to e-commerce platforms |
| 2025-09-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D813,320 - “FITNESS BELT”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D813,320, “FITNESS BELT,” issued March 20, 2018 (’320 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’320 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead protects a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶11; ’320 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a fitness belt. The design is defined by the drawings, which depict an article with a distinct overall elongate and oval-shaped silhouette when laid flat, a prominent, centrally positioned cinching band that overlays a wider backing panel, and a visible pattern of vertical support ribs along the backing panel (’320 Patent, FIGs. 1-7). The claim covers the ornamental design "as shown and described" (’320 Patent, CLAIM).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic combination of shapes, contours, and component arrangements for a fitness belt, contributing a unique visual impression to the marketplace for such goods (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: “The ornamental design for a fitness belt, as shown and described” (Compl. ¶11; ’320 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the ’320 Patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "accused waist belts," collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint focuses on the ornamental appearance of the Accused Products rather than their function. It alleges the Accused Products are fitness belts marketed and sold through various e-commerce channels, including proprietary websites and third-party marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶2, 6). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison illustrating the visual features of an Accused Product, such as its shape when worn from the front and back (Compl. p. 5). This visual evidence shows the accused product being worn by a person, highlighting its appearance in its intended use environment (Compl. p. 5, FIG. 1 comparison). The complaint further alleges that the Accused Products are sold to customers in the Southern District of Florida (Compl. ¶¶6, 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the Accused Products is "identical to, or substantially the same as," the design claimed in the ’320 Patent (Compl. ¶18). The complaint presents its infringement theory through narrative allegations and a side-by-side visual comparison.
’320 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from ’320 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature of the Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall elongate, oval shape of the inner belt panel | The Accused Product allegedly shows the same silhouette and proportions as the patented design. A visual comparison of the patented design laid flat (FIG. 3) and the accused product is provided. | ¶20(a); p. 5 | FIGs. 1-5 |
| A centrally positioned cinching band overlying the backing belt panel | The Accused Product features a central cinching band that fastens with overlapping connecting sections. | ¶20(b) | FIGs. 1-4 |
| The arrangement of vertical support ribs along the backing belt span | The Accused Product includes vertical support ribs in a similar arrangement. The complaint's visual comparison of the rear view highlights this feature. | ¶20(c); p. 5 | FIGs. 2-4 |
| The overall contours and balance of claimed ornamental features | The Accused Product is alleged to embody the same overall visual impression as the claimed design. | ¶20(d) | FIGs. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question in design patent cases is the scope of the claimed design in light of the prior art. The dispute may focus on whether the similarities between the patented design and the Accused Product relate to purely functional aspects of a fitness belt—which are not protected by a design patent—or to the claimed ornamental features.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. A key question for the fact-finder will be whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same. This analysis may be influenced by any differences between the designs, such as the prominent "WS" logo visible on the Accused Product's cinching band in the complaint's photographic evidence (Compl. p. 5). The effect of such branding on the overall visual impression is a frequently litigated issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the analysis focuses on the overall ornamental visual appearance as depicted in the patent's drawings, rather than the construction of specific text-based claim terms. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself. The dispute will not be over the meaning of words, but rather over which visual features of the "fitness belt" are ornamental and non-functional, and what the overall visual impression of those features is to an ordinary observer. Practitioners will likely focus on delineating the protected ornamental design as a whole from any underlying functional elements. The complaint identifies features it considers salient to the overall design, including the "elongate, oval shape," the "centrally positioned cinching band," and the "arrangement of vertical support ribs" (Compl. ¶20).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Defendant knowingly encouraged and aided "resellers, affiliates, and customers to market and sell the Accused Products" with knowledge of the ’320 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a finding of willful infringement, which may form the basis for enhanced damages (Prayer for Relief, ¶f). The factual predicate for this allegation appears to be Defendant's continued infringing conduct after receiving actual notice of the ’320 Patent and the alleged infringement via takedown notices submitted to e-commerce platforms beginning on or about July 8, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶13-15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely center on the application of the "ordinary observer" test, which is highly fact-specific and dependent on visual evidence. The key questions for the court and jury appear to be:
- A core issue will be one of design scope and prior art: To what extent are the shared features between the patented design and the accused product common in the prior art for fitness belts? The answer will determine the scope of the patent's protection and whether the claimed design is substantially similar to the accused product from the perspective of an observer familiar with the field.
- A second determinative issue will be the impact of branding on overall appearance: Does the prominent logo on the Defendant's product create a distinct visual impression in the mind of an ordinary observer, or is it insufficient to overcome the alleged similarities in the product's overall shape, proportions, and structural ornamentation?