DCT

0:23-cv-00523

JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Torque Fitness LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:23-cv-00523, D. Minn., 03/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a principal place of business and residing in the District of Minnesota, as well as selling and advertising the accused products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s suspension strap exercise products infringe one design patent and two utility patents related to modular strap connectors and handgrip assemblies.
  • Technical Context: The technology is in the field of bodyweight resistance training equipment, a segment of the fitness market that emphasizes portability and versatility for a wide range of exercises.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff JFXD TRX ACQ LLC acquired the asserted patents from Fitness Anywhere LLC in August 2022. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant in January 2023 to provide notice of the alleged infringement, a fact that may be central to the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-11-22 Earliest Priority Date for '413 and '334 Patents
2016-12-09 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D831,764
2018-10-23 U.S. Patent No. D831,764 Issued
2020-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,857,413 Issued
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,400,334 Issued
2022-08-26 Plaintiff acquires Asserted Patents from Fitness Anywhere LLC
January 2023 Plaintiff allegedly provides Defendant notice of infringement
2023-03-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D831,764, "FLEXIBLE STRAP WITH A DUAL STITCH PATTERN," issued October 23, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ornamental appearance of a component for an exercise strap ('764 Patent, Title, Figs. 1-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual design of a flexible strap featuring a dual stitch pattern, as depicted in the patent's figures ('764 Patent, Figs. 1-3). The design consists of two parallel lines of stitching centered on a folded portion of a strap.
  • Technical Importance: In the fitness equipment market, distinct visual and ornamental features can serve as source identifiers and points of product differentiation.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a flexible strap with a dual stitch pattern, as shown and described" (’764 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Patent No. 10,857,413, "APPARATUS, KIT, AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING STRAP-BASED EXERCISES," issued December 8, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for a resistance exercise device that is more modular and versatile than prior art systems, which were often limited in their configurations and compatibility with different support structures ('413 Patent, col. 1:38-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular exercise apparatus that uses a novel "infinity loop" to connect components ('413 Patent, Abstract). This infinity loop, formed by folding a single piece of strap material back on itself to create multiple stacked loops, provides a strong and versatile method for attaching grips, anchors, and other straps without extensive hardware ('413 Patent, col. 7:4-15; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a multi-loop fabric connector is presented as an improved apparatus for connecting portions of an exercise device, offering strength and reliability while being economical to manufacture ('413 Patent, col. 1:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least one claim, including claim 1 (Compl. ¶39). Independent apparatus claim 4 is representative of the core technology.
  • Independent Claim 4 requires:
    • An exercise device comprising an elongated member with a pair of ends.
    • A "first loop" and a "second loop" formed by folding first and third portions of the elongated member against a second portion, with the second loop proximate to the first.
    • The second portion is "secured" to the first and third portions.
    • A "third loop" formed by folding a fourth portion of the member against the third portion, with the third loop proximate the second loop.
    • An attachment mechanism secured to the first loop.
    • A grip secured to the second loop by a supporting member.

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,400,334, "EXERCISE DEVICE WITH A PAIR OF HANDGRIP ASSEMBLIES," issued August 2, 2022
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an exercise system comprising a pair of distinct handgrip assemblies. Each assembly is designed for attachment to a separate anchor point, enabling exercises like pull-ups and dips. Each assembly includes a combination grip (tubular hand grip and foot grip) and a strap with multiple loops for connection to hardware like buckles or carabiners (’334 Patent, Claim 1; col. 1:12-19).
    • Asserted Claims: At least one claim is asserted (Compl. ¶44).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products, when sold and used as a pair, embody the claimed combination of two separate, modular handgrip assemblies (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "Torque Black Pro Suspension Straps" and the "Blue Pro Suspension Straps" (collectively, "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are strap-based exercise devices used for bodyweight training (Compl. ¶¶2-3). The complaint includes a photograph of Plaintiff's own "TRX® Home2 System" to illustrate the type of product in the relevant market (Compl. ¶14, p. 5). The Accused Products are alleged to be directly competitive with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all three patents by referencing preliminary claim charts submitted as Exhibits G, H, and I (Compl. ¶¶34, 39, 44). As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint, the specific, element-by-element infringement contentions are not available for analysis. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • '764 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product includes the ornamental design of the '764 Patent, thereby infringing at least one claim (Compl. ¶34). This suggests the Accused Product incorporates a strap with a dual stitch pattern that is alleged to be visually indistinguishable from the patented design.
  • '413 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product includes each element of at least one claim of the '413 Patent, such as the multi-loop structure described in claim 4 (Compl. ¶39). The theory of infringement appears to be that the connector mechanism on the Accused Product constitutes a direct equivalent of the claimed "infinity loop" structure.
  • '334 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product includes each element of at least one claim of the '334 Patent (Compl. ¶44). This implies that the Accused Products are sold or used as a pair of handgrip assemblies, each with the combination of features recited in the '334 Patent's claims.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the '764 design patent, the central question will be whether an "ordinary observer" would find the accused design substantially the same as the patented design. For the '413 and '334 utility patents, a key question is whether the accused connector mechanism falls within the scope of the claims, particularly the specific multi-loop structures defined.
    • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over how the accused connector is constructed and functions. Evidence will be needed to determine if it is formed from a single elongated member folded into stacked loops, as described in the '413 Patent, or if it achieves a similar function through a different structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "infinity loop" ('413 Patent, col. 7:4)

    • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the '413 Patent's described point of novelty. The definition of this term will be critical because if it is construed narrowly to the specific embodiments shown, it may be easier for the Defendant to design around or argue non-infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers more generally to "one or more infinity loops configured to attach various portions of the exercise apparatus together," which may suggest a functional definition.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 and the corresponding description detail a very specific structure where a "single member 510 is stacked by doubling member 510 against itself" to form three distinct loops and "a stack comprising four layers" ('413 Patent, col. 7:36-47). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to this four-layer stack configuration.

  • The Term: "secured" ('413 Patent, col. 2:21)

    • Context and Importance: Claim 4 of the '413 Patent requires that a "second portion" of the elongated member be "secured" to the first and third portions to form the loops. Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of securing (e.g., stitching, adhesive, ultrasonic welding) could be a point of distinction between the patent's teachings and the accused device's construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "secured" is not explicitly defined and could encompass any method of fastening.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts and describes the use of stitching to join the layers of the strap ('413 Patent, col. 8:4-7, "Lines of stitching 710 are used to hold various portions..."). A party could argue that "secured" should be interpreted in light of these consistent examples as being limited to permanent fastening methods like stitching.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendant's actions have induced others (e.g., end-users) to infringe (Compl. ¶¶34, 39, 44). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts supporting these allegations, such as references to user manuals or advertising that instruct on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on two grounds: (1) Defendant's alleged constructive notice of the patents due to Plaintiff's status as a "market leader," and (2) Defendant's alleged actual notice via a communication from Plaintiff's General Counsel in January 2023, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶30, 37, 42, 47).

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

  1. A central issue for the '764 design patent will be a visual one: would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, be deceived into believing the accused strap's stitch pattern is the same as the patented design, or are they plainly dissimilar?
  2. For the utility patents, a key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "infinity loop", as claimed in the '413 Patent, be construed broadly to cover various multi-loop fabric connectors, or is it limited to the specific four-layer stacked structure shown in the patent's preferred embodiments?
  3. A critical evidentiary question will concern willfulness: what evidence demonstrates Defendant’s state of mind, and can Plaintiff prove that Defendant's conduct was egregious or deliberately reckless, particularly following its receipt of the alleged notice letter in January 2023?