DCT
1:23-cv-04474
Believe Pursue LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd
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: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04474, N.D. Ill., 07/11/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the judicial district, transact business with consumers in Illinois, and offer to ship accused products to Illinois addresses.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling and importing counterfeit hip thrust exercise belts that infringe Plaintiff's design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns exercise equipment, specifically a belt designed to hold weights for performing hip thrust exercises, a popular item in the home fitness market.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of a prior application filed in August 2020. The complaint is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common procedure in online counterfeit enforcement actions.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-08-11 | U.S. D'983,897 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-02-01 | Plaintiff launched the BELLABOOTY Belt |
| 2023-04-18 | U.S. D'983,897 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-07-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897 - "Hip Thrust Belt"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a functional problem. The patent aims to provide a new, original, and ornamental design for a hip thrust belt (D’983,897 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of an exercise belt. The design is characterized by an elongated, rectangular central pad with two straps extending from its shorter sides, terminating in looped ends (D’983,897 Patent, Figs. 1, 9). The overall configuration and specific shapes of these features constitute the protected ornamental design (D’983,897 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying this design became "enormously popular" and is known for its "distinctive design," which consumers have come to associate with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a hip thrust belt, as shown and described herein" (D’983,897 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the solid lines of the patent's drawings, including:
- The overall aesthetic appearance of the belt.
- The specific proportions and shape of the central pad.
- The appearance of the straps and their looped ends.
- The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally, which encompasses the single design claim (Compl. ¶49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "Counterfeit Products," specifically hip thrust exercise belts sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" on platforms such as Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 49).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are unauthorized copies intended to be used for performing hip thrusts and other exercises (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15). The complaint provides an image from a "Defendant Internet Store" showing the accused product being used to hold dumbbells across a user's hips while performing the exercise. The image on page 13 of the complaint is a composite marketing graphic illustrating the setup and use of an accused belt (Compl. p. 13). Plaintiff alleges these are part of a widespread counterfeiting operation that trades on the goodwill of its product (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 47).
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, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products create a visual impression that is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50).
D'983,897 Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from the sole claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a hip thrust belt as depicted in the patent figures. | The accused counterfeit belts are alleged to be "colorable imitation[s] of the designs claimed in the BELLABOOTY Patent." | ¶50; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a) | Figs. 1-15 |
| An elongated, generally rectangular central pad with two straps extending from its shorter sides. | The accused product features a central padded section with straps extending from its ends, as shown in the provided marketing image. | p. 13 | Figs. 9, 10 |
| Straps that terminate in looped ends, configured to secure weights. | The marketing image for the accused product shows straps being looped through or around weights and secured with Velcro. | p. 13 | Figs. 1, 9 |
| The specific visual appearance of the belt when folded for storage. | The complaint does not specifically allege infringement of the folded configuration, but the overall design similarity is asserted. | ¶49 | Fig. 1 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary legal question in a design patent case is one of scope and similarity: Is the overall visual appearance of the accused belts "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The analysis will involve a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent figures.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous Defendants are identical to the "Exemplary Counterfeit Products" shown in the complaint (Compl. p. 13). Plaintiff will need to establish that the products sold by each defendant fall within the scope of the asserted patent claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction, as design patents are claimed through their drawings rather than through textual limitations requiring formal construction. The central issue is the scope of the design as a whole.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants "directly and/or indirectly" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶49). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off" infringing products, which suggests a theory of induced infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis for inducement may rest on allegations that Defendants operate online stores that enable and encourage consumer purchases and use of the infringing items.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the BELLABOOTY Patent" and the "popularity and success of the BELLABOOTY Belt" (Compl. ¶46). The complaint further alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness" to Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of visual similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the various accused belts substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '897 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
- A foundational issue for the case will be attribution and proof: Given the complaint's structure targeting numerous online sellers listed in a sealed schedule, a key challenge for the Plaintiff will be to present sufficient evidence linking each distinct "Defendant Internet Store" to the sale of products that infringe the patented design.