DCT
1:25-cv-05155
Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Bala Bangles Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a NOONCRAZYPRO Store (P.R. China)
- Defendant: Bala Bangles, Inc. (California), Natalie Kislevitz (New York), and Maximilian Kislevitz (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Liu, Esq.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05155, S.D.N.Y., 06/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the New York residence of the individual defendants, who are co-inventors of the patent-in-suit, and on the corporate defendant’s regular and established places of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its wearable weight products do not infringe Defendant's design patent and that the patent is invalid, arising from Defendant's use of the patent to halt Plaintiff's sales on Amazon.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of wearable exercise weights, a product category in the consumer fitness market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this action was precipitated by Defendant Bala Bangles filing a patent infringement complaint with Amazon on May 12, 2025, which resulted in the "lockdown" of Plaintiff's product listings. The complaint also raises invalidity arguments based on alleged functionality and a cited Korean design registration as prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-03-22 | ’167 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2020-06-23 | ’167 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-05-12 | Defendant allegedly filed complaint with Amazon against Plaintiff |
| 2025-06-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 - “Weighted exercise band”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 (“Weighted exercise band”), issued June 23, 2020 (the “’167 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides a new, ornamental design for an article of manufacture, as required for design patent protection.
- The Patented Solution: The ’167 Patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a weighted exercise band. The design, as depicted in the patent’s figures, consists of an array of eight elongated, pill-shaped bars arranged adjacent to one another on a band (’167 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The claimed design also includes specific surface ornamentation on each bar, such as lines on the flat top surface and on the rounded ends (’167 Patent, FIG. 9). The claim covers the visual impression created by the combination of the overall shape, the configuration of the parts, and the surface ornamentation.
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic for wearable exercise weights, distinguishing them visually in the consumer marketplace.
Key Claims at a Glance
- As a design patent, the ’167 Patent contains a single claim: “The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described.”
- The scope of this claim is defined by the patent's drawings, which depict the following essential ornamental features:
- An overall configuration of eight individual, elongated bars with rounded ends, arranged in a side-by-side sequence.
- A specific pattern of surface lines on the top and end surfaces of each bar.
- The visual appearance of the bars being immediately adjacent to one another in a flat configuration.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Plaintiff’s “weight band products” sold via its "NOONCRAZYPRO Store" on Amazon (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as weight bands for consumers (Compl. ¶1). The central feature relevant to the non-infringement allegations is their visual design, which the plaintiff alleges differs from the patented design. The complaint provides a photograph showing the accused product, which consists of multiple dark-colored, rectangular weights held on a strap. A photograph of the accused product shows a series of dark, rectangular weights held on a fabric band (Compl. ¶21). The complaint notes that the bars are removable, allowing for configurations other than eight bars (Compl. ¶14). Plaintiff’s sales were allegedly halted due to an infringement complaint filed by the Defendant with Amazon (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff alleges non-infringement. The table below summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its product design is different from the patented design.
| Claimed Design Feature (’167 Patent) | Allegedly Different Feature of Plaintiff's Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A series of eight weight bars abutting each other in a sequence, as shown in top view. | The product has visible gaps between adjacent weight bars. Stitching on the underlying band allegedly creates a physical barrier, making it impossible for the bars to touch. | ¶21, ¶23 | FIG. 4 |
| The end of each weight bar is decorated with one horizontal line and two vertical lines. | The ends of the product's weight bars are described as "mostly smooth" and lacking the claimed line decorations. The complaint includes a photo of the product's bar end to illustrate this difference. | ¶25 | FIG. 9 |
| The flat surface of each weight bar is decorated with two vertical lines and two horizontal lines. | The flat surface of the product's weight bar is decorated with five vertical lines. | ¶26 | FIG. 9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. A central question is whether an ordinary observer would find the overall visual appearance of the accused product to be substantially the same as the patented design, despite the differences alleged in the complaint. This raises the question of how much visual weight is given to the configuration of the bars (abutting vs. gapped) versus the surface ornamentation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the removability of the bars in its product makes any eight-bar configuration "an incidental event" (Compl. ¶14). A point of contention may be whether the functional modularity of the accused product is relevant to the infringement analysis of a static ornamental design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the drawings rather than discrete text. However, the dispute as framed by the complaint centers on the interpretation of specific visual features.
- The Term: The visual depiction of "abutting" weight bars.
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s primary non-infringement argument is that its product has gaps between the bars, whereas the patented design shows the bars touching (Compl. ¶20-21). The interpretation of whether the claimed design requires the bars to be in direct contact, or merely arranged adjacently, is therefore critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the overall visual impression of a "band of bars" is the core of the design and that minor gaps do not alter this impression. Figure 8, which shows the band in a curved configuration, could suggest that the precise relationship between the bar edges is not rigidly fixed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff argues that Figures 1 and 4 clearly depict the bars in direct contact with no intervening space (Compl. ¶20). This visual evidence may support a narrower interpretation where the "abutting" nature of the bars is a required element of the claimed design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Invalidity: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the ’167 Patent is invalid on two grounds:
- Functionality: It alleges the design is "primarily functional in nature" and therefore ineligible for design patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §171 (Compl. ¶11, ¶34).
- Prior Art: It alleges that decorative elements of the design were known before the patent's filing date, specifically citing Korean Design Registration 30-0934806 as disclosing a "near identical design pattern" (Compl. ¶13, ¶35). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the prior art design and the ’167 Patent's Figure 4 (Compl. ¶35).
- State Law Claims: Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of New York General Business Law § 349 and tortious interference with business relationships (Compl. ¶37-49). These claims are based on the allegation that Defendants knowingly filed a "frivolous" and "baseless" infringement complaint with Amazon to wrongfully disrupt Plaintiff's business (Compl. ¶38, ¶46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual distinction: Under the "ordinary observer" test, are the alleged differences between the accused product (gaps between bars, different surface line patterns) and the patented design significant enough to create a different overall visual impression, thereby avoiding infringement?
- A key validity question will be one of obviousness: Does the cited Korean Design Registration, or other prior art, render the ornamental design of the ’167 Patent obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art, or are the differences sufficient to support the patent’s validity?
- The case also presents a question of enforcement conduct: Were the Defendants' infringement assertions to Amazon made in good faith, or were they, as Plaintiff alleges, a bad-faith enforcement of a patent that is either invalid or so clearly not infringed as to support claims for tortious interference and deceptive business practices?