DCT

1:19-cv-04155

Fitness Anywhere Inc v. Ukhomeware Diy

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Fitness Anywhere LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-04155, N.D. Ill., 06/20/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive and commercial internet stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of hand grips for exercise equipment via online stores infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a grip.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the fitness equipment market, focusing on the specific ornamental design of components for body-weight resistance training systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a group of unnamed foreign entities, identified only in a "Schedule A," alleging they are an "interrelated group" of online sellers. This procedural posture is common in actions targeting alleged counterfeit goods sold on online marketplaces, where identifying and serving individual defendants can be a significant challenge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-07-29 D'945 Patent Priority Date
2012-10-30 D'945 Patent Issue Date
2019-06-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D669,945 - "Hand Grip for an Exercise Device" (Issued Oct. 30, 2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not articulate a technical problem in the manner of a utility patent. Instead, it asserts that TRX products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" which are "broadly recognized by consumers" and associated with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶10).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental, non-functional appearance of a hand grip for an exercise device (D'945 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of a generally cylindrical hand grip with a slightly convex or "barreled" profile, featuring a surface texture of a repeating diamond-shaped or crisscross lattice pattern (D'945 Patent, Figs. 3-4). The patent’s description clarifies that elements shown in broken lines, such as the internal bore of the grip and the attached exercise strap, do not form part of the claimed design (D'945 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this design is "instantly recognizable" and has come to "symbolize high quality" in the fitness equipment market (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a hand grip for an exercise device, as shown and described" (D'945 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, which include:
    • The overall cylindrical and slightly convex shape of the grip.
    • The specific crisscross, diamond-patterned texture covering the surface of the grip.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "hand grips for exercise equipment" sold by the Defendants, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" operating on various online marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶2, 13).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused products as unauthorized and unlicensed exercise equipment components that are offered for sale and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶3, 13). It alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who use tactics such as operating under fictitious names and using similar store templates to conceal their identities and sell products that trade upon TRX's reputation (Compl. ¶¶14, 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products incorporate a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the TRX Design" (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). The complaint includes Figure 1 from the patent, illustrating the claimed design in the context of an exercise strap (Compl. ¶10). However, the complaint does not contain images of the accused products themselves, making a direct visual comparison impossible from the provided documents.

The core allegation is that the ornamental appearance of the Defendants' hand grips is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'945 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: The primary question is evidentiary: what is the actual appearance of the "Infringing Products"? The infringement analysis will depend entirely on a visual comparison between the D'945 patent drawings and the specific products sold by the Defendants.
    • Scope Question: A potential issue for the court is the overall visual impression created by the claimed design. The analysis will focus on whether the accused products, once identified, replicate the specific combination of the grip's shape and its distinctive diamond-lattice surface pattern as depicted in the patent's solid-line drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically a process of describing the claimed ornamental features shown in the patent's figures, rather than defining textual terms.

  • The "Term": The overall "ornamental design for a hand grip."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of patent protection is defined by the solid-line drawings in the D'945 patent. The key issue is what visual elements constitute the protected design and how that design as a whole compares to the accused products. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between the claimed features (solid lines) and the unclaimed environment (broken lines), as this distinction is critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might contend that the essential feature of the design is the combination of a cylindrical grip with a diamond-lattice texture, and that minor variations in proportion or curvature in an accused product do not alter the overall visual impression that an ordinary observer would perceive (D'945 Patent, Fig. 3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope could emphasize the precise details shown in the drawings, such as the specific angle of the crisscross pattern, the slight convexity of the grip's profile, and the proportions shown in the various views (D'945 Patent, Figs. 4-7). They could also point to the disclaimer of the strap and end caps (shown in broken lines) to argue that the claimed design is limited to the grip surface itself (D'945 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "indirectly" infringe and aid or abet infringement (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis for this is the allegation that Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶21). This is supported by allegations that the Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" and without authorization from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶14, 20).

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

  1. Evidentiary and Procedural Hurdle: A threshold issue for the case will be procedural: can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous Defendants, establish personal jurisdiction, and obtain discovery of the actual products being sold in order to conduct an infringement analysis?
  2. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central substantive question will be one of visual comparison: are the accused hand grips, once identified, "substantially the same" in their overall ornamental appearance to the design claimed in the D'945 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The outcome will hinge on the visual evidence presented to the court.
  3. Scope of Protection: The court's application of the infringement test will depend on its understanding of the design's scope—specifically, how the claimed features (the grip's shape and diamond-patterned surface) are distinguished from the unclaimed environmental structure (the strap and end caps) and how this distinction affects the comparison to the accused products.