DCT
1:24-cv-01549
Aoty Sports Inc v. Domesick
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aoty Sports, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Michael Domesick (Connecticut) and AbMill, LLC (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keener & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01549, N.D. Ill., 02/23/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Aoty Sports alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred in the district, and Defendants target business activities towards consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its ab roller exercise device does not infringe four of Defendants’ patents and that those patents are invalid, following a patent infringement complaint Defendants submitted to Amazon.com which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff’s product.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to plank support exercise devices designed to improve user comfort and ergonomics by distributing body weight across the forearms rather than concentrating it on the elbows.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was initiated in response to a "Takedown Notice" submitted by Defendants to Amazon.com, in which Defendants claimed that Plaintiff's product infringed at least U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-02-25 | Earliest Priority Date ('573, '092, '245, '364 Patents) |
| 2018-02-20 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 9,895,573) |
| 2019-01-08 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 10,173,092) |
| 2019-05-14 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 10,286,245) |
| 2022-11-08 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364) |
| 2024-02-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,895,573 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Issued: February 20, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the discomfort and potential for injury associated with conventional plank exercises, where significant force is concentrated on a user's elbows, and notes that existing exercise aids often have poor ergonomics that can lead to wrist strain (’573 Patent, col. 2:3-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise apparatus featuring hand grips and corresponding forearm support pads connected by a frame member. This design purports to solve the identified problems by distributing the user's body weight across the forearms instead of the elbows and by allowing for an adjustable distance between the hand grips and the pads to accommodate different users (’573 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-59).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to make the plank exercise safer and more accessible by enhancing ergonomic comfort and improving the distribution of supportive forces.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "the claims of the '573 Patent" without identifying specific claims (Compl. ¶28). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- An exercise apparatus comprising:
- a frame member;
- at least two hand grip areas fixedly connected to the frame member;
- at least one arm support pad connectable to the frame member;
- wherein a distance between the hand grip areas and the arm support pad is adjustable;
- a destabilization device connectable to the frame member and configured to facilitate a destabilizing movement; and
- a ground-interface surface positioned on the destabilization device.
U.S. Patent No. 10,173,092 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Issued: January 8, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same technical problems as the parent ’573 Patent: discomfort from weight concentrated on the elbows during plank exercises and poor ergonomics, such as wrist strain, in conventional devices (’092 Patent, col. 2:3-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention, as part of the same family, also discloses an apparatus with hand grips and adjustable arm support pads connected to a frame. The abstract highlights the adjustability of the distance between the hand grip and the arm support pad and the presence of a ground-interface surface positioned along a portion of the frame member (’092 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-59).
- Technical Importance: This patent continues the development of an ergonomic plank support device focused on adjustability and stability.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint generally refers to "the claims of the '092 Patent" without specifying any for its non-infringement count (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A plank support exercise apparatus comprising:
- a frame member;
- at least two hand grip areas fixedly connected to the frame member;
- at least one arm support pad connectable to the frame member, where a distance between the hand grip areas and the arm support pad is adjustable, and the pad is movable independently of the grips;
- wherein the grips are on a common side of the arm support pad;
- a destabilization device connectable to the frame member comprising a rotational member with a curved element; and
- a ground-interface surface positioned on the destabilization device.
U.S. Patent No. 10,286,245 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Issued: May 14, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the subject matter of the family, describing a plank support apparatus with a frame, grips, and an arm support member. The claims focus on the structural arrangement, including a ground interface surface that allows the apparatus to maintain a self-stabilized position when placed on the ground (’245 Patent, col. 22:12-24).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint makes a general allegation of non-infringement (Compl. ¶34); independent claims include 1, 16, 17, and 19.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's Product does not infringe any claim of the ’245 Patent (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 - "Plank Support Exercise Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Issued: November 8, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: This patent further describes a plank support apparatus with a frame, hand grip, and arm support pad. The claims are directed to specific structural configurations, such as a frame member having a tubular shape where the arm support pad is attached (’364 Patent, col. 22:39-48).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint makes a general allegation of non-infringement (Compl. ¶37); independent claims include 1, 4, 8, and 11.
- Accused Features: The complaint specifically argues that its product does not meet the limitations of claim 1 because it allegedly lacks a "frame member" that has a "tubular shape at which at least one portion of the arm support pad is attached" (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s "ab roller device," sold on Amazon under ASIN B0CPJDQXLQ (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The device is a personal exercise product sold directly to consumers through Amazon's e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶11). An image included in the complaint shows a device with two wheels, a central body, and handles with associated pads for a user's arms (Compl. p. 3). The complaint’s primary technical assertion is that the product's arm support pads are "unattached to a frame member," a feature illustrated with a close-up photograph (Compl. ¶18; Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a complete analysis of the infringement allegations that Plaintiff is seeking to rebut. The complaint makes only a general claim of non-infringement for the ’573 and ’092 patents.
U.S. Patent No. 9,895,573 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame member | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶28 | col. 6:47-54 |
| at least two hand grip areas fixedly connected to the frame member | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶28 | col. 6:4-10 |
| at least one arm support pad connectable to the frame member | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶28 | col. 6:20-24 |
| a destabilization device connectable to the frame member... | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶28 | col. 7:9-12 |
U.S. Patent No. 10,173,092 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame member | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶31 | col. 5:47-54 |
| at least two hand grip areas fixedly connected to the frame member | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶31 | col. 6:1-10 |
| at least one arm support pad connectable to the frame member... | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶31 | col. 6:18-24 |
| a destabilization device connectable to the frame member... | The complaint does not provide a specific non-infringement theory for this element, asserting only a general denial of infringement. | ¶31 | col. 22:36-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: For the ’573, ’092, and ’245 patents, a primary issue will be establishing the specific infringement theories articulated by the Defendants in their Amazon takedown notice or to be presented in their answer to the complaint, as the complaint itself offers no details.
- Scope Questions: Drawing from the specific dispute over the ’364 Patent, a central question will be the proper construction of "frame member" and whether the central body of the accused wheeled product falls within that scope (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will concern the physical structure of the accused product. The complaint's visual evidence, which highlights the arm pad region of its product, suggests a dispute over whether the pad is "attached" to what Defendants will allege is the "frame member" in a manner covered by the claims (Compl. p. 5).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "frame member"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed apparatus in all asserted patents. Plaintiff Aoty's specific non-infringement argument for the ’364 Patent hinges on the assertion that its product lacks a "frame member" attached to the arm support pad (Compl. ¶18). The definition of this term will be critical in determining whether the main structural body of the accused device meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications describe the frame member functionally as the structure that "extends from the hand grip" and to which the "arm support pad is connected" (’092 Patent, col. 2:52-55). This functional language may support an interpretation that covers any primary structure serving this role.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures across the patent family consistently depict the frame member as a bifurcated, tubular structure resembling bicycle handlebars (e.g., ’092 Patent, Fig. 6). A party could argue that the term should be limited to the types of structures disclosed in the preferred embodiments.
- The Term: "attached" (and related terms like "connectable to")
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the factual dispute articulated in the complaint. Aoty provides a visual purporting to show that its arm support pad is "unattached to a frame member" (Compl. p. 5; Compl. ¶18). How "attached" is defined will determine if the physical integration of the pad and body in the accused product constitutes infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications disclose multiple methods of connection, including adjustable hubs that slide along the frame, posts inserted into the frame, and straps, suggesting the term is not limited to a single, direct method of fixation (’092 Patent, col. 9:12-24, col. 10:48-54, col. 11:11-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term requires a distinct frame component and a distinct pad component that are joined together, potentially distinguishing it from a device where the pad and body are integrally formed or part of the same molded component. The complaint's photograph appears to advance a theory that a separate, tubular frame element is required for attachment (Compl. p. 5).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "frame member," which is described in the patents’ embodiments as a tubular, handlebar-like structure, be construed broadly enough to read on the central wheeled body of the accused ab roller?
- A central question will be one of structural correspondence: does the physical construction of the accused product, particularly the integration of its arm support pad with its main body, satisfy the claim requirement that the pad be "attached" or "connectable to" the "frame member," or is there a fundamental structural difference as Plaintiff alleges?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of articulated infringement theory: what specific claims and limitations did the Defendants allege were infringed in their pre-suit communication to Amazon, and how will that theory apply to the three patents for which the Plaintiff's complaint provides no detailed non-infringement arguments?