DCT
1:19-cv-06290
Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Ultimate Body Press Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fitness Anywhere LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ultimate Body Press, Inc. (Delaware) and Mr. Frank Balentine
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Duane Morris LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-06290, N.D. Ill., 09/20/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants sell the accused products into the district through their own website and Amazon.com, and because Defendants have a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Ultimate Body Press Bodyweight Resistance Trainer infringes patents related to combination grips, door anchors, and modular strap configurations for suspension exercise equipment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, strap-based exercise equipment that primarily uses a person's own bodyweight for resistance, a market segment popularized by the Plaintiff's TRX-branded products.
- Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history is mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-04-09 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,806,814 |
| 2007-09-17 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,083,653 |
| 2010-10-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,806,814 Issues |
| 2011-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,083,653 Issues |
| 2016-11-22 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,245,460 |
| 2019-04-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,245,460 Issues |
| 2019-09-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,806,814 - "Combination Grip for an Exercise Drive," Issued October 5, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for resistance exercise devices that are easily adjustable to provide a complete workout for any user, overcoming the limitations of prior art devices with fixed lengths or inconsistent resistance from elastic bands ('’814 Patent, col. 2:20-27, 58-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise apparatus with a versatile "combination grip" that includes both a rigid hand grip and a flexible loop, which can be used as a foot grip ('814 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-57). This dual-functionality grip, as illustrated in figures like FIG. 27, allows a user to perform a greater number of exercises with a single piece of equipment ('814 Patent, col. 13:35-42).
- Technical Importance: This combination grip design increases the utility of a single piece of exercise equipment, allowing it to be used for both upper and lower body exercises without needing to swap out accessories ('814 Patent, col. 2:51-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- An exercise apparatus comprising: an inelastic portion having at least one end including a first loop;
- a hand grip attached to said first loop;
- and a second loop attached to said hand grip, where said second loop is a continuous loop which passes through said hand grip,
- where said hand grip is integrally attached to said at least one end,
- where said second loop is integrally attached to said at least one end,
- and where said exercise apparatus is adapted to support the weight of a user of the exercise apparatus by said hand grip, said second loop, or some combination thereof.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,083,653 - "Exercise Device Having a Door Anchor," Issued December 27, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with prior art exercise devices that are attachable only to specific types of structures, limiting their versatility ('’653 Patent, col. 1:29-38). There is a need for a device that can be securely and non-damagingly anchored to a common structure like a closed door.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise device featuring a specific door anchor design ('653 Patent, Abstract). The anchor has an enlarged portion that sits on one side of a closed door and a smaller elongate portion that passes over the top of the door, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, allowing the exercise straps to hang on the other side ('653 Patent, col. 4:26-34). The design ensures the anchor is not passable through the door jamb when in use, providing a secure mount point ('653 Patent, col. 4:32-34).
- Technical Importance: This anchor design made strap-based exercise systems highly portable and usable in common indoor environments (e.g., homes, hotel rooms) without requiring permanent fixtures or specialized mounting hardware ('653 Patent, col. 3:10-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- An exercise device for mounting between a door and a door jamb of a closed door, said exercise device comprising: an anchor having a first portion, an enlarged portion, and an elongate portion that extends between said first portion and said enlarged portion;
- and a pair of portions, where each of the pair of portions is inelastic and has a length that extends from a corresponding grip to an end, and where each of said ends is fixedly connected to said first portion,
- where, when said anchor is mounted to the closed door: said elongated portion extends from a first side of the closed door to a second side of the closed door,
- said enlarged portion is not passable through the closed door, and
- said first portion extends away from the second side of said door by a distance.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,245,460 - "Apparatus, Kit, and Method for Performing Strap-Based Exercises," Issued April 2, 2019
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses the need for a modular resistance exercise device that is easily configurable for different exercises and support structures ('’460 Patent, col. 1:11-18). The solution involves an elongated member with multiple "infinity loops" that serve as attachment points, allowing a user to connect grips and anchor the device in various configurations, thereby adjusting the effective length and resistance ('460 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:49-62).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶19).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the "Utility Strap" feature of the Accused Product, which is used to alter resistance, infringes the '460 Patent (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Ultimate Body Press Bodyweight Resistance Trainer" and associated product bundles, referred to as the "Accused Product" and "Accused Family" (Compl. ¶¶1, 16).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Product is a strap-based exercise system that includes handles, straps, a door anchor, and a "Utility Strap" for adjusting resistance (Compl. ¶¶17-19). The complaint provides a photograph showing the components of the system (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges the product is a lower-cost substitute for Plaintiff's TRX products and directly competes with them, citing customer reviews that explicitly compare the two (Compl. ¶¶25, 39). The product is sold online via Defendants' website and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'814 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an inelastic portion having at least one end including a first loop; a hand grip attached to said first loop; | The complaint provides a visual of the Accused Product's handle assembly, showing a strap forming a loop to which a rigid, tubular hand grip is attached (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 15:58-60 |
| and a second loop attached to said hand grip, where said second loop is a continuous loop which passes through said hand grip, | The visual depicts a webbing strap that forms a continuous loop for a user's foot, which passes through the center of the rigid hand grip (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 16:6-12 |
| where said hand grip is integrally attached to said at least one end, where said second loop is integrally attached to said at least one end, | The complaint's side-by-side comparison shows the hand grip and the foot loop forming a single, inseparable unit at the end of the main exercise strap (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 16:6-12 |
| and where said exercise apparatus is adapted to support the weight of a user ... by said hand grip, said second loop, or some combination thereof. | The product is advertised and functions as a bodyweight resistance trainer, inherently designed to support a user's weight via the hand grips or the foot loops for various exercises (Compl. ¶1). | ¶1, 17 | col. 2:60-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "integrally attached." The defense could argue this requires the components to be molded or formed as a single, unitary piece, whereas the accused product appears to use webbing stitched together. The patentee may argue "integrally" simply means the components are permanently joined and intended to function as a single unit.
- Technical Questions: The infringement read appears to depend on the specific assembly of the accused grip. The court will need to determine if the "second loop" is in fact "attached to said hand grip" in the manner claimed, or if it is more accurately described as being attached to the same "inelastic portion" as the hand grip.
'653 Patent Infringement Allegations
A visual comparison in the complaint juxtaposes Figures 1 and 2 of the '653 Patent with a photograph of the Accused Product's "Doorway Anchor" feature (Compl. ¶18).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an anchor having a first portion, an enlarged portion, and an elongate portion that extends between said first portion and said enlarged portion, | The visual of the accused "Doorway Anchor" shows a loop of webbing (first portion) connected to a thicker, padded block (enlarged portion) by a length of webbing (elongate portion) (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 4:26-31 |
| a pair of portions... where each of said ends is fixedly connected to said first portion, | The main exercise straps (pair of portions) are shown connected to the webbing loop (first portion) of the anchor (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 3:1-7 |
| when said anchor is mounted to the closed door: said elongated portion extends from a first side of the closed door to a second side... | The instructions depicted for the accused anchor show the elongate webbing passing over the top of the door, connecting the enlarged portion on one side to the first portion on the other (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 4:26-31 |
| said enlarged portion is not passable through the closed door, | The enlarged, padded block is dimensioned to be larger than the gap between the door and the jamb, preventing it from pulling through when under load (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 4:32-34 |
| and said first portion extends away from the second side of said door by a distance. | The anchor design creates a standoff, where the connection point for the straps (first portion) is separated from the face of the door by a distance (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 1:59-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "fixedly connected" may be a point of dispute. Does the connection of the main straps to the anchor's first portion allow for sliding, or is it truly fixed? If the straps can slide through the anchor's loop, it may not meet the "fixedly connected" limitation.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will depend on the actual dimensions and materials of the accused anchor. Evidence will be required to confirm that the "enlarged portion" is in fact "not passable" through a standard door gap under typical load conditions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "integrally attached" ('814 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term appears twice in the claim and is central to defining the relationship between the hand grip, the foot loop, and the main strap. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '814 Patent may depend on whether the Accused Product's stitched-webbing construction meets the definition of "integrally attached."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to explicitly define the term. A patentee might argue that in the context of webbing-based exercise equipment, stitching is a standard method for creating a permanent, inseparable connection, which should be considered "integral." The description of loop 2710 in FIG. 27 as being "integrally attached to hand grip 423" while being formed from separate pieces of webbing supports this view ('814 Patent, col. 16:6-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An accused infringer might argue that "integrally" implies being formed of one piece, such as through molding. The lack of an explicit definition could lead a court to apply a more conventional, restrictive meaning, potentially distinguishing it from a stitched assembly.
The Term: "fixedly connected" ('653 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines how the main exercise straps connect to the door anchor. If the connection is not "fixed," but rather allows the straps to slide relative to the anchor, the accused product may not infringe. This is critical to the operational principle described.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition. A patentee could argue "fixedly" means non-removably connected during normal use, as opposed to being, for example, hooked on and off.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An accused infringer may argue that "fixedly" implies no relative movement whatsoever (i.e., no sliding). The specification contrasts the invention with devices where straps can slide through a support, suggesting the claimed invention is meant to be non-slidable at the anchor point ('653 Patent, col. 3:15-26). The complaint's own visual for the '653 patent (Compl. ¶18) shows the main straps passing through a loop on the anchor, which raises the question of whether that connection is truly "fixed."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendants encourage infringement by selling the Accused Product and providing instructions on how to use it in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶36, 41, 46). The complaint references an included "full color Bodyweight Resistance Trainer exercise guide" as evidence of such instructions (Compl. ¶21).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' knowledge of TRX as a market leader and the "constructive notice" provided by Plaintiff's patents (Compl. ¶¶39, 44, 49). It further supports this by citing customer reviews on Amazon.com that explicitly compare the Accused Product to "the 'real' TRX straps," suggesting Defendants were aware they were selling a substitute for a patented product (Compl. ¶¶25, 39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "integrally attached" in the ’814 Patent be construed to cover the stitched webbing assembly of the Accused Product, or does it require a unitary construction? Similarly, does the connection between the straps and anchor in the Accused Product meet the "fixedly connected" limitation of the ’653 Patent, or does it permit sliding movement that would place it outside the claim scope?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of direct comparison: the complaint provides side-by-side visual comparisons that appear to map claim elements onto the Accused Product. The case may turn on whether these visual allegations withstand technical scrutiny regarding how the accused device actually operates and is constructed, particularly in light of the claim construction outcomes.
- A third central question will concern willfulness: do the allegations of Defendants' knowledge of TRX as a market leader, combined with customer reviews openly identifying the Accused Product as a lower-cost alternative to TRX, provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of willful infringement, should liability be established?