Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fitness Anywhere LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Allegedly operating from the People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01361, N.D. Ill., 02/25/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ e-commerce stores targeting and making sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized e-commerce sales of hand grips for exercise equipment infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of hand grips used in the commercially significant market for body-weight resistance and suspension training fitness equipment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a large number of unidentified entities, a common strategy in anti-counterfeiting litigation targeting online sellers. Plaintiff alleges these entities operate in concert to conceal their identities and evade enforcement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D669,945 - "Hand Grip for an Exercise Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D669,945, “Hand Grip for an Exercise Device,” issued October 30, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead seeks to protect the unique, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a hand grip, which the complaint alleges is a "distinctive" and "broadly recognized" design associated with the Plaintiff's brand (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the hand grip as illustrated in its figures (’945 Patent, "Claim"). The design consists of a generally cylindrical grip with a slightly concave longitudinal profile and is characterized by a textured surface of repeating, incised diamond shapes that cover the grasping area (’945 Patent, FIG. 3, FIG. 4). The broken lines in the patent figures explicitly disclaim the connecting straps and internal core, focusing the claimed design on the grip's external shape and pattern (’945 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that fitness equipment embodying these designs is associated with the quality and innovation that the public expects from Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hand grip for an exercise device, as shown and described" (’945 Patent, "Claim").
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, the key elements of which include:
  • The overall proportions and cylindrical shape of the hand grip.
  • The gentle concave curvature along the length of the grip.
  • The specific cross-hatched, diamond-patterned surface texture.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" hand grips for exercise equipment, which the complaint collectively terms the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint states that images of these products are shown in its "Exhibit 1," which was not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are sold through numerous "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" operating under various "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶2, ¶15). The complaint alleges these online stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to deceive consumers and are operated by an "interrelated group of infringers" based in foreign jurisdictions (Compl. ¶18, ¶24). The complaint references an image of the patented design, such as FIG. 1, when discussing the "TRX Design" that is allegedly infringed (Compl. ¶10). This image from the patent shows a perspective view of the hand grip with its distinctive diamond-patterned texture, attached to a disclaimed strap assembly (Compl. ¶10, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent 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 does not contain a formal claim chart but alleges that the Defendants' products are a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the TRX Design" (Prayer ¶1(a)).

The central allegation is that the accused hand grips sold by Defendants are visually, ornamentally, and substantially the same as the design claimed in the '945 patent. The complaint asserts that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the TRX Design" (Compl. ¶28). The ultimate comparison will depend on evidence of the accused products, which the complaint states are depicted in a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶3).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The primary issue will be a factual comparison: Does the overall visual appearance of the accused products create substantially the same impression as the design claimed in the '945 Patent? The analysis will depend on evidence (e.g., product samples or high-resolution photographs) of what Defendants actually sold.
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold challenge for the Plaintiff will be to connect specific accused products to the various anonymous "Seller Aliases" and prove that these entities fall under the court's jurisdiction. The complaint's structure, targeting a wide network of unknown operators, suggests that proving these links will be a central part of the case (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents differs from that for utility patents. The "claim" is understood through its visual depiction in the patent's figures, rather than through the definition of textual terms. The court's role is to describe the claimed ornamental design in words to guide the fact-finder.

• The "Claim" as a Whole: The scope of the '945 Patent's single claim is the overall ornamental appearance of the hand grip shown in the solid lines of its drawings.
• Context and Importance: Any legal dispute over scope will likely center on the visual effect of the design as a whole, not the meaning of a single word. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing ornamental features from purely functional ones and defining the boundaries of the claimed design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the design for a "hand grip for an exercise device," which could be argued to cover any exercise grip embodying the claimed visual characteristics, regardless of the specific type of exercise equipment it is attached to (’945 Patent, Title).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise visual details—the specific diamond pattern, the exact curvature, and the proportions shown in Figures 3-7—define the design. An argument could be made that any significant deviation from this specific appearance falls outside the claim's scope. Further, the use of broken lines to show the connecting strap and internal cylinder explicitly removes those elements from the claimed design, limiting protection to the grip’s external surface and shape (’945 Patent, Description, FIG. 1, FIG. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "directly and/or indirectly" infringe and asks for an injunction against aiding and abetting infringement (Compl. ¶24, Prayer ¶1(b)). The factual support points to an "interrelated group of infringers" allegedly "working in active concert," which may support a theory of joint or induced infringement among the various defendant entities (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly pleaded (Compl. ¶25). The complaint supports this allegation by claiming that Defendants acted "knowingly and wilfully" and engaged in tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as operating under multiple aliases and using offshore bank accounts (Compl. ¶20, ¶23, ¶24).

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

1. A primary issue will be procedural and evidentiary: can the Plaintiff successfully establish personal jurisdiction over the numerous, anonymous foreign defendants and gather sufficient evidence to prove that specific infringing products were sold by each distinct "Seller Alias"?
2. The core substantive question will be one of visual identity: once the accused products are identified, will their overall ornamental appearance be considered "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '945 Patent in the eye of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
3. A key practical question will concern the effectiveness of the remedy: given that the Defendants are alleged to be a diffuse network of foreign operators using tactics to evade judgment, can the Plaintiff obtain and, more importantly, enforce an injunction and damages award that effectively curtails the alleged infringement?