DCT

1:23-cv-02935

Believe Pursue LLC v. T Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Believe Pursue LLC (California)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thoits Law
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-02935, N.D. Ill., 05/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, conduct substantial business there, and have offered to sell and ship products to Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell counterfeit exercise belts that infringe its design patent for a hip thrust exercise belt.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to home and gym fitness equipment, specifically a portable belt designed to facilitate hip thrust exercises using free weights like dumbbells and kettlebells.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted design patent is a continuation-in-part of a prior application that issued as a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,369,831), which may provide context on the functional aspects of the product design. The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action targeting numerous, often anonymous, online merchants.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-08-11 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D983,897 S
2021-02-01 Plaintiff launched the BELLABOOTY Belt
2023-04-18 U.S. Patent No. D983,897 S Issued
2023-05-10 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D983,897 S, "Hip Thrust Belt", issued April 18, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’897 Patent does not explicitly state a technical problem. The purpose of a design patent is to protect the novel, ornamental, and non-obvious visual characteristics of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶1; ’897 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hip thrust belt. The claimed design consists of a central, elongated, rectangular pad with rounded bottom corners, through which a strap passes. The strap terminates in looped ends. The overall visual impression is conveyed through multiple figures showing the belt in both folded and unfolded configurations (’897 Patent, Figs. 1-15). The design is what is claimed, not the function of the belt (’897 Patent, CLAIM).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying this design was "first to market" with a "game-changing design" that has become "enormously popular" and is "broadly recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶19, ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hip thrust belt, as shown and described herein." (’897 Patent, CLAIM).
  • This single claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article depicted in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products," specifically "counterfeit BELLABOOTY Belts," sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" on platforms such as Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶1, ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are unauthorized copies that mimic the appearance and function of Plaintiff's proprietary "BELLABOOTY Belt" (Compl. ¶1, ¶15).
  • Functionally, these are exercise belts used to perform hip thrusts, featuring slip-resistant padding and the ability to hold weights (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes an image from a "Defendant Internet Store" showing the accused product in use, holding dumbbells across a user's hips during an exercise (Compl. p. 13).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and that the success of the authentic product has resulted in "significant counterfeiting" (Compl. ¶24, ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

  • The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it presents a side-by-side visual comparison between figures from the patent and images of an "Exemplary Counterfeit Product" to support its infringement claim (Compl. ¶50). The analysis for a design patent hinges on the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same.
Claim Element (from the Single Design Claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a hip thrust belt, as shown and described herein. The complaint alleges that the accused "Counterfeit Products" are "colorable imitation[s]" of the patented design. Visuals provided in the complaint depict an accused product with a central rectangular pad and looped straps that appears visually similar to the patented design figures. ¶49; ¶50 (pp. 12-13) col. 1:57-59

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue in design patent cases is distinguishing ornamental features from purely functional ones. A question for the court may be whether certain aspects of the belt's design (e.g., the use of straps, the general rectangular shape of the pad) are dictated by function and therefore outside the scope of design patent protection.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a visual comparison. A key question is whether the visual differences, if any, between the accused products and the patent drawings are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary observer, thereby avoiding a finding of substantial similarity. The complaint’s allegation of "counterfeiting" suggests Plaintiff believes the similarity is exact or nearly so (Compl. ¶24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction does not focus on textual terms but on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, interpreted in light of the drawings. The analysis centers on the overall visual impression.

The "Term"

  • The overall ornamental appearance of the "hip thrust belt."

Context and Importance

  • The scope of the design claim will be critical. The court will need to determine what specific visual elements constitute the protected ornamental design. Practitioners may focus on identifying the specific combination of shapes and configurations that create the unique visual appearance protected by the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent includes numerous figures showing the design from all angles, both folded and unfolded, which could support the argument that the claim covers the overall aesthetic combination of the pad and straps in various states, not just a single static view (’897 Patent, Figs. 1-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific proportions, the rounded corners of the pad, the flat, wide nature of the straps, and the way the straps emerge from the pad are all detailed in the drawings (’897 Patent, Figs. 1, 7, 9). A defendant could argue that the design is limited to this precise combination of elements and that any deviation, however minor, would place an accused product outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶49). The prayer for relief also requests an injunction against "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as the genuine BELLABOOTY Belt" (Prayer for Relief, ¶1.b).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement, stating that Defendants had "knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the BELLABOOTY Patent," knew of the product's fame and success, and proceeded in "bad faith" or with "reckless disregard or willful blindness" to Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶46, ¶47, ¶51).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused belts substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’897 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one?
  • A key secondary question will be the distinction between ornament and function: Which specific visual elements of the belt design—such as the precise shape of the pad, the style of the strap loops, or the surface appearance—are protectable ornamental features, versus those elements that are dictated by the belt's function and thus unprotectable by a design patent?
  • Given the nature of the defendants, a critical procedural and jurisdictional question will be the court’s ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over, and enforce a judgment against, a large number of foreign, potentially anonymous e-commerce operators identified only in a sealed schedule.