DCT
1:25-cv-03614
Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Bala Bangles Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a NOONCRAZYPRO Store (China)
- Defendant: Bala Bangles, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Liu, Esq.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03614, E.D.N.Y., 01/02/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because the defendant, Bala Bangles, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and the alleged infringement occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its weight band products do not infringe Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167, and that the patent is invalid over prior art.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of wearable weighted exercise bands, a product category within the personal fitness and wellness market.
- Key Procedural History: This action follows a prior complaint filed by the defendant (Bala Bangles) against the plaintiff (Xiamen Tingken) on May 12, 2025, which allegedly resulted in the plaintiff's Amazon product listings being "locked down." The plaintiff also alleges the defendant's patent is invalid in light of a Korean design registration.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-03-22 | D'167 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2020-06-23 | D'167 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-05-12 | Defendant allegedly filed a complaint against Plaintiff |
| 2026-01-02 | Complaint Filing Date (Current Declaratory Judgment Action) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 - *"Weighted exercise band"*
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. The implicit goal is to provide a unique ornamental appearance for a weighted exercise band (D’167 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a weighted exercise band as depicted in its nine figures (D’167 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of a series of eight elongated, bar-shaped elements with rounded ends, shown abutting one another in a linear sequence (D’167 Patent, Fig. 4). The top surface of each bar features a rectangular shape defined by incised lines, and the end caps of the bars also have specific line-based ornamentation (D’167 Patent, Figs. 2, 4). The figures also show the band in a curved configuration, as if worn on a limb (D’167 Patent, Fig. 8).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Defendant's patented product is sold through retailers like Lowe's stores, suggesting the design has commercial significance in the fitness accessories market (Compl. ¶4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described."
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- A sequence of eight elongated bars.
- The bars are shown abutting each other without gaps.
- Each bar has rounded ends.
- The top surface of each bar is decorated with a rectangular pattern of lines.
- The end surface of each bar is decorated with one horizontal and two vertical lines.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff's "weight bands" sold on the Amazon platform under the store name NOONCRAZYPRO Store (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as weight bands that have different decorative and functional features compared to the patented design (Compl. ¶11).
- Key alleged differences include: decorative parallel lines on the top and end surfaces, visible gaps between some of the weight bars, and the ability for bars to be removed or added, which is not a feature of the static patented design (Compl. ¶12). A photograph in the complaint shows the plaintiff's product, a black weight band with textured surfaces. (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents its non-infringement arguments through a direct visual comparison of the designs.
D'167 Patent Design Feature Comparison
| Patented Design Feature (D'167 Patent) | Allegedly Different Accused Product Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eight weight bars are shown abutting each other in a sequence. | The accused product has gaps between adjacent weight bars, specifically noted between bars #2-#3 and #4-#5. | ¶20 | Fig. 4 |
| The flat top surface of each weight bar is decorated with two vertical lines and two horizontal lines, forming a rectangle. | The flat top surface of the accused product's weight bar is decorated with five vertical lines. | ¶19 | Fig. 4 |
| The end of each weight bar is decorated with one horizontal line and two vertical lines. | The end of the accused product's weight bar is "mostly smooth with five parallel lines on half of the surface." | ¶23 | Fig. 2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The core dispute will question whether the patented design, which shows eight bars continuously abutting one another, can be read to cover a product with visible gaps between its bars (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). The complaint provides a photograph showing these alleged gaps in its product (Compl. ¶20).
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the finder of fact will be whether the different surface ornamentations—a rectangle formed by four lines on the patented design versus five vertical lines on the accused product—are minor variations or create a substantially different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer (Compl. ¶19). A comparison table with images is provided in the complaint to highlight this difference (Compl. ¶19).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As a design patent case, traditional claim construction is not the central issue. The "claim" is coextensive with the drawings. However, disputes will arise over the scope of the design claimed in those drawings.
- The Term: The overall visual impression of the "weighted exercise band."
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis will depend entirely on comparing the overall visual impression of the accused product with the patented design. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the core ornamental features of the patented design—versus what is merely functional or unimportant detail—will be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the core design concept is simply a series of segmented, rounded-rectangular weights on a band, and that minor variations in surface texture or spacing do not alter this fundamental design. Figure 8, showing the band in a flexed configuration, may suggest that the precise relationship between the bars is not rigid (D’167 Patent, Fig. 8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plaintiff argues for a narrower scope, contending that specific, consistently depicted features are limitations. This includes the precise number of bars (eight), their abutting arrangement, and the specific line patterns on the top and end surfaces, all of which are consistently shown across multiple views (Compl. ¶8, ¶18, ¶22; D’167 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 6, 7).
VI. Other Allegations
- Invalidity: The complaint includes a count for a declaratory judgment of invalidity (Compl. p. 1). It alleges that the decorative elements of the D'167 patent were known prior to its filing date, citing Korean Design Registration 30-0934806 as disclosing a "nearly identical design pattern" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes a drawing from this alleged prior art reference (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court's answers to two central questions:
- A question of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, do the alleged differences in the accused product—specifically the gaps between weight bars and the distinct surface line patterns—create an overall visual appearance that is plainly dissimilar from the patented design, or are these differences too minor to negate a finding of substantial similarity?
- A question of novelty: Does the cited Korean Design Registration, or other prior art, disclose an ornamental design so similar to the D'167 patent that it would have rendered the patented design obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art of exercise equipment at the time the invention was made?