Prostairs Fitness LLC v. Brown

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Richard Mullen; ProStairs Fitness, LLC (Massachusetts)
  • Defendant: Collis Brown; Colliseum, LLC (Massachusetts)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McGowan & Lavin
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-11604, D. Mass., 07/24/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because the defendants reside within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their "ProStairs" exercise apparatus does not infringe a patent owned by Defendants covering a multi-function exercise apparatus.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to multi-station exercise equipment that combines elements for both aerobic and strength training into a single, compact structural unit.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states this declaratory judgment action arises from "threats" by the Defendants that Plaintiffs' product infringes the patent-in-suit. The filing also alleges a prior business relationship between the parties, in which Plaintiff Mullen funded the development of the "ProStairs" product that is now the subject of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-10-19	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,114,271
2015-08-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,114,271 Issued
2019-07-24	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,114,271 ("Multiple Exercise Apparatus for Aerobic and Strength Training"), issued August 25, 2015 (the "'271 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes that conventional exercise equipment is often specialized for a single purpose (e.g., aerobics or strength), may have complex mechanisms requiring maintenance, and that certain exercises like dips and pull-ups can be too difficult for individuals of average fitness ('271 Patent, col. 1:11-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, compact apparatus that combines a flight of stairs for aerobic exercise with an adjacent slide, spanned at the top by a platform ('271 Patent, Abstract). The structure includes various hand grips at specific heights and angles, and attachment points for other exercise devices, to facilitate a range of strength exercises (like modified dips and inclined push-ups) suitable for users with varying fitness levels ('271 Patent, col. 2:7-17, 51-57).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to create structural synergy by having the stairs, slide, and frame contribute to the overall rigidity of the apparatus, allowing for a space-efficient combination of multiple exercise stations ('271 Patent, col. 3:55-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims asserted by the Defendants. Independent Claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim and is representative of the invention.
• The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • a flight of stairs and a slide attached to a support structure;
  • a platform between an upper end of the flight of stairs and an upper end of the slide;
  • a hand grip mounting portion comprising a horizontal upper surface within 3 feet of a floor; and
  • a first pair of hand grips attached to the hand grip mounting portion... extending therefrom at an orientation of 0-40 degrees from horizontal, wherein the first pair of hand grips is retractable.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as "ProStairs units" or the "ProStairs exercise apparatus" (Compl. ¶10, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide technical details regarding the features or specific operation of the ProStairs apparatus. It alleges that Plaintiffs "have made, marketed, offered to sell and sold" the units based on a design Plaintiff Mullen "paid for and developed" (Compl. ¶10).
• The filing suggests the ProStairs units are commercially available products, but offers no information on market position or commercial importance (Compl. ¶10, 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a request for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. Plaintiffs contend their "ProStairs exercise apparatus does not infringe" the ’271 Patent, and that this action is necessary because Defendants have "asserted, contend, and threatened" that Plaintiffs' activities are infringing (Compl. ¶16-18). The specific basis for the Defendants' infringement assertions is not detailed in the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Given the lack of specific allegations, any infringement analysis will depend on the features of the actual "ProStairs" product. Key factual questions for the court would include:
  • Structural Questions: Does the ProStairs apparatus include the claimed combination of a "flight of stairs," a "slide," and a "platform" connecting them, as recited in Claim 1 of the ’271 Patent?
  • Technical Questions: Does the ProStairs apparatus include a "first pair of hand grips" that is "retractable," as required by Claim 1? The mechanism and existence of retractability would be a central point of comparison.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "retractable"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in Independent Claim 1, describing a required feature of the "first pair of hand grips" ('271 Patent, col. 4:24-27). Whether the ProStairs product has hand grips that meet the legal definition of "retractable" could be determinative of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines a specific functionality that may not be present in all similar exercise equipment.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where "retractable" is achieved by hand grips made of "cylindrical rods or pipes inserted slidably through respective holes in the hand grip mounting portion" ('271 Patent, col. 4:29-32). Defendants may argue this embodiment limits the scope of the term. Figure 5 further illustrates this specific slidable rod mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit "retractable" to a specific mechanism (e.g., sliding). Plaintiffs may argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass other methods of retraction, such as hinging or folding, and that the slidable rod is merely an exemplary embodiment.

• The Term: "slide"

• Context and Importance: The presence of a "slide" in combination with a "flight of stairs" is a foundational element of Independent Claims 1 and 6 ('271 Patent, col. 4:13, col. 4:60). The definition of "slide" is critical, as a dispute could arise over whether any inclined surface qualifies, or if a more specific structure is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes and depicts a slide that is "generally parallel" to the stairs and may have a "peak (28) within a lower half of its length" to provide headroom for a user performing push-ups below it ('271 Patent, col. 2:25-29, 41-47; Fig. 1). A party could argue these features define the required "slide."
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "slide" is not explicitly defined in the patent. A party could argue it should be construed broadly to mean any surface intended for a user to slide down, without the limitations of being parallel to the stairs or having a "peak."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

• A threshold procedural question will be whether the Defendants' alleged "threats" are sufficient to create an "actual case and controversy" under the Declaratory Judgment Act, giving the court jurisdiction to hear the case.
• A central issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define key limitations such as "retractable" hand grips and a "slide"? The outcome of this legal determination will significantly shape the subsequent infringement analysis.
• The ultimate dispute will likely be a direct factual comparison: once the claims are construed, the case will turn on whether the evidence shows that the Plaintiffs' "ProStairs" product—whose specific design is not described in the complaint—actually incorporates every element of at least one asserted claim of the ’271 Patent.