DCT
1:18-cv-13464
Intense Fitness Products Inc v. Rogers Athletic Co Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intense Fitness Products, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: Rogers Athletic Company, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MacWilliams Poirier PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-13464, E.D. Mich., 11/06/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in, maintains an established place of business in, and has committed infringing acts within the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HiTrainer and Tred Sled non-motorized treadmills infringe a patent related to an exercise apparatus with a counter-resistive treading mechanism that enables a full-body workout.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns exercise treadmills designed for high-intensity, anaerobic workouts by requiring the user to simultaneously drive a resistant belt with their legs and push against a forward structure with their upper body.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notification of the asserted patent and its alleged infringement on September 17, 2018, which may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-07 | '015 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 6,387,015 Issues |
| 2018-09-17 | Plaintiff sends written notification to Defendant |
| 2018-11-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,387,015 - "Exercise Apparatus Employing Counter-Resistive Treading Mechanism," May 14, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a single exercise machine that can provide both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning for a full-body workout without requiring significant reconfiguration, which prior art devices allegedly failed to do (’015 Patent, col. 2:3-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise apparatus where a user pushes against a "forward engagement structure" (e.g., handles) while their feet push a "counter-resistive treading mechanism" rearward. This arrangement is designed so that the force generated by the user's legs is transmitted through their torso and arms to the forward structure, thereby engaging the upper and lower body simultaneously in an anaerobic, strength-building exercise (’015 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-19). Figure 1 illustrates a user applying force to both the handles and the treading surface.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to merge the benefits of anaerobic training, such as pushing a weighted sled, with the general form of a treadmill, creating a novel apparatus for a comprehensive, full-body workout (’015 Patent, col. 5:50-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 9 (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) Essential Elements:
- A lower frame structure with forward and rearward portions.
- An upper frame structure extending from the forward portion of the lower frame.
- A forward engagement structure on the upper frame for engagement by the user's upper body.
- A counter-resistive treading mechanism on the lower frame that opposes rearward displacement by the user's feet, whereby force from the legs is transmitted through the upper body to the forward engagement structure, allowing a full-body workout.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims, including at least claims 1 and 9," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Products" are the HiTrainer treadmills (including the HiTrainer ATP+ and HiTrainer Pro) and the Tred Sled treadmills (Compl. ¶9).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Accused Products as "non-motorized treadmill[s]" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes several screenshots from Defendant's website showing athletes using the products by leaning forward, pushing on handlebars, and driving the treadmill belt with their legs (Compl. ¶¶10-12). The image provided in Paragraph 13 shows a user on the HiTrainer ATP+ in a manner that allegedly constitutes exercise. This configuration, according to the complaint, forces the user to power the belt's movement against its inherent resistance, thereby causing a full-body workout consistent with the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'015 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lower frame structure having forward and rearward portions | The Accused Products include a base frame with distinct forward and rearward portions, as depicted in an annotated photograph showing the product's base. | ¶14 | col. 6:41-42 |
| an upper frame structure extending upwardly from said forward portion of said lower frame structure | An upward-extending frame is connected to the forward part of the base, supporting the handlebars. The complaint provides an annotated image isolating this structure. | ¶15 | col. 6:43-45 |
| a forward engagement structure coupled to an upper portion of said upper frame structure, said forward engagement structure operative to be engaged by an upper body portion of a user of said exercise apparatus | The Accused Products have handlebars that serve as the forward engagement structure, which a user grasps or pushes against with their upper body. | ¶16 | col. 6:46-50 |
| a counter-resistive treading mechanism supported by said lower frame structure...said counter-resistive treading mechanism at least partially opposing the rearward displacement of the feet of said user...whereby the force generated by the user's legs...is transmitted through the user's upper body to the forward engagement structure, thereby allowing for a substantially full-body workout... | The "non-motorized treadmill" belt provides resistance that the user must overcome, and this action allegedly results in the claimed transmission of force from the legs through the upper body to the handles. | ¶¶17-20 | col. 6:50-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "counter-resistive." The complaint alleges that the "non-motorized" nature of the Accused Products inherently provides the claimed resistance (Compl. ¶19). The question for the court will be whether the scope of "counter-resistive," as defined and described in the patent, covers the innate mechanical resistance of a non-powered treadmill, or if it requires a specific, separate mechanism (e.g., frictional, magnetic) designed to add resistance.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the technical means by which the Accused Products generate resistance beyond describing them as "non-motorized." A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused treadmills' operation satisfies the functional "whereby" clause of the claim, which requires a specific transmission of force through the user's body to achieve a "substantially full-body workout." An annotated photograph in the complaint purports to show this force transmission (Compl. ¶20).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "counter-resistive treading mechanism"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted claims and distinguishes the invention from a conventional treadmill. Its construction will likely determine infringement, as the central issue is whether a "non-motorized" treadmill meets this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "counter-resistive" broadly as "a resistance in an opposite direction to the direction of force exerted by a user to rearwardly displace the treading mechanism" (’015 Patent, col. 2:45-50). This definition does not explicitly require a separate, add-on resistance component and could be argued to encompass any mechanism that opposes the user's force, including the inherent friction and inertia of a non-powered belt.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of resistance mechanisms, stating they "can be a frictional, magnetic, or hydraulic resistance mechanism" (’015 Patent, col. 2:60-63). A party could argue this language suggests the term is limited to such affirmative, engineered resistance systems rather than the passive resistance of a simple non-motorized belt.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "instruction manuals" and other materials that teach and encourage end-users to operate the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the method claims of the ’015 Patent (Compl. ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff claims it sent Defendant "written notification" of the alleged infringement on September 17, 2018. The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after this date, without attempting a design change or developing non-infringement theories, was reckless and deliberate (Compl. ¶31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "counter-resistive treading mechanism", which the patent illustrates with specific frictional or magnetic systems, be construed broadly enough to read on the inherent mechanical resistance of any "non-motorized" treadmill?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functionality: assuming the claim construction is broad enough, what technical evidence will be required to prove the "whereby" clause—that the accused products' design necessarily causes the "force generated by the user's legs" to be "transmitted through the user's upper body" to achieve the claimed "substantially full-body workout"?