JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: JFXD TRX ACQ LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction Undetermined, Allegedly Foreign)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00715, N.D. Ill., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through the operation of interactive e-commerce stores and making sales to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of hand grips for exercise equipment infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of hand grips, a component of equipment used in the popular fitness market for body-weight resistance training.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a new filing and does not reference any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. The case is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a strategy often used to target a large number of unidentified online sellers believed to be operating in concert.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-07-29	U.S. Patent No. D669,945 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2012-10-30	U.S. Patent No. D669,945 Issued
2024-01-26	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D669,945, “Hand Grip for an Exercise Device,” issued October 30, 2012 ('945 Patent). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the need for fitness products to have a unique and recognizable appearance in a competitive market, associating the product's look with a specific brand and its reputation (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects a specific ornamental design for a hand grip. The claimed design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a generally cylindrical grip body featuring a repeating diamond or cross-hatch surface texture (’945 Patent, FIG. 3, 4). Notably, the patent uses broken lines to illustrate environmental structure, such as the strap and end portions of the grip, indicating these elements are not part of the claimed design and thereby focusing protection on the grip’s specific shape and surface ornamentation (’945 Patent, DESCRIPTION; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: This ornamental design provides a distinctive visual identity for a piece of fitness equipment, which the plaintiff alleges has become broadly recognized by consumers and associated with the quality of its "TRX Products" (Compl. ¶10).

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" (’945 Patent, Claim).
• The essential ornamental features of the claimed design, as depicted in the patent figures, are:
  • A generally cylindrical shape for the hand grip.
  • A surface ornamentation consisting of a repeating, raised diamond or cross-hatch pattern.
• The complaint asserts this single design claim against the Defendants (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "hand grips for exercise equipment," which the complaint collectively refers to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, and sell the accused products through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶14). These online stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers (Compl. ¶17). A table within the complaint shows figures from the ’945 Patent, identifying this as the "TRX Design" that is allegedly being infringed (Compl. p. 4). The complaint does not contain any photographs or screenshots of the actual accused products being sold by Defendants.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’945 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the Single Design Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a hand grip for an exercise device, as shown and described.	Defendants are alleged to be "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the patent.	¶27	FIG. 1-7

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint asserts infringement without providing any visual evidence (e.g., photographs or screenshots) of the accused products for a side-by-side comparison with the patented design. A threshold question for the court will be whether the evidence, once produced, demonstrates that the design of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the view of an "ordinary observer."
• Scope Question: The infringement analysis must properly exclude the disclaimed elements shown in broken lines in the patent's figures (the strap and end caps). A potential, though perhaps unlikely, defense could arise if any perceived similarity between the products rests primarily on these unclaimed, functional-looking features rather than on the claimed ornamental surface pattern and shape of the grip itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "The ornamental design ... as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: For a design patent, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, not a set of text-based limitations. The central legal inquiry is the scope of the visual impression protected by the patent. Practitioners may focus on which visual elements—the overall shape, the surface texture, the proportions—are the dominant features of the protected design that an ordinary observer would notice.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is not limited to a particular size, color, or material, suggesting the design's scope covers the depicted shape and surface pattern regardless of these attributes. The patent's description states that the front, back, left, and right elevation views are "identical," which may support the view that the repeating, symmetrical pattern is the dominant feature of the design (’945 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of broken lines to disclaim the strap and end caps explicitly limits the scope of protection to the solid-line features (’945 Patent, DESCRIPTION; FIG. 1, 2). The protection afforded by the patent is strictly confined to the visual appearance of the cylindrical grip and its diamond-patterned surface, and does not extend to the overall configuration of a hand grip assembly.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶23) and that infringing products from different seller aliases "bear similar irregularities...suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source" (Compl. ¶20). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement, which suggests a theory of indirect infringement based on a coordinated enterprise (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶24). The complaint supports this by claiming Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶23) and engage in tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as using multiple aliases and offshore accounts, which may suggest knowledge of the infringing nature of their activities (Compl. ¶¶13, 19, 22).

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

• A central issue will be evidentiary and factual: As the complaint lacks images of the accused products, the case will turn on the subsequent presentation of evidence and whether it can establish that the ornamental design of the Defendants' products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the ’945 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
• A key procedural question will be one of enforcement effectiveness: The case appears to be a test of the "Schedule A" litigation model's ability to provide meaningful relief against a large number of anonymous, allegedly foreign-based e-commerce sellers, where the primary remedy sought is an injunction directed at third-party online marketplace platforms.