DCT

2:25-cv-05155

Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Bala Bangles Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05155, S.D.N.Y., 06/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the individual defendants (the patent's inventors) reside in the district and the corporate defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district through sales at local Lowe's stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its weight band products do not infringe Defendant's design patent and that the patent is invalid, and further alleges tortious interference and violations of New York business law.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of wearable exercise weights, a product category within the consumer fitness and wellness market.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was precipitated by Defendants' complaint to Amazon on May 12, 2025, which alleged that Plaintiff's products infringed the patent-in-suit and resulted in the lockdown of Plaintiff's Amazon sales listings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-03-22 U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 Application Filed (Priority Date)
2020-06-23 U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 Issued
2025-05-12 Defendants allegedly file complaint with Amazon against Plaintiff
2025-06-19 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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 (’167 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution in the manner of utility patents. Their purpose is to protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’167 Patent claims a specific ornamental design for a weighted exercise band. The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a series of elongated, rectangular bars with rounded ends that are shown abutting one another in a linear sequence (’167 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The claimed design also includes surface ornamentation on the individual bars, consisting of lines on their flat top surfaces and ends (’167 Patent, FIG. 4, 9). The overall visual impression is that of a segmented, bracelet-like object.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical importance of this specific design.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described" (’167 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential visual elements of this claim, as defined by the solid lines in the drawings, include:
    • A series of eight individual, elongated bars.
    • Each bar having a generally rectangular shape with rounded ends.
    • The bars being arranged adjacent to one another in a manner that they appear to be touching or abutting.
    • Specific surface ornamentation on the flat top surface of each bar, depicted as two vertical and two horizontal lines.
    • Specific surface ornamentation on the ends of each bar, depicted as one horizontal and two vertical lines.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiff’s "weight band products" 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 whose constituent bars are removable, allowing a user to form, for example, a "one bar band or a ten bar band" (Compl. ¶14).
  • The complaint alleges its products have "different decorative patterns with gaps between bars" (Compl. ¶14). A photograph in the complaint shows the Plaintiff's product, illustrating several separate weight bars on an elastic band (Compl. ¶21).
  • The complaint alleges these products were sold to consumers in the U.S., including New York, via Amazon prior to being "locked down" as a result of Defendants' infringement assertions (Compl. ¶1-2, 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments and evidence for why its product design is different from the claimed design of the ’167 Patent.

’167 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (from ’167 Patent Figures) Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of Plaintiff's Product Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A series of weight bars shown abutting each other in a sequence. The product has visible gaps between adjacent weight bars, allegedly created by stitching on the underlying elastic band. ¶21, 23, 29 FIG. 1, 4
The ends of each weight bar are decorated with one horizontal line and two vertical lines. The ends of the product's weight bars are "mostly smooth" and do not have the claimed line decorations. ¶25, 30 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, 31 FIG. 9
  • Identified Points of Contention: The core of the non-infringement dispute will be the application of 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.
    • Scope Questions: The primary question is whether the visual differences alleged by the Plaintiff—gaps between bars, different surface line patterns, and smooth ends—are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression from the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would not be confused.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court may be how the claimed design's features, such as the "abutting" bars, are interpreted from the two-dimensional patent drawings. The complaint suggests that the elastic band shown in Figure 8 of the patent, which is not visible in Figures 1 and 4, implies the bars must touch to obscure it, an interpretation the Plaintiff's gapped product would not meet (Compl. ¶24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete textual terms. The dispute will center on the interpretation of the patent's drawings.

  • The "Term": The overall visual appearance of the "weighted exercise band," particularly the relationship between the individual bars and the specific surface ornamentation.
  • Context and Importance: The determination of non-infringement hinges on whether the claimed design is limited to the exact configuration shown—including abutting bars and specific line patterns—or if it covers a broader range of similar segmented wrist weights. Plaintiff's case relies on a narrow interpretation of the design's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the overall visual impression of a segmented band of rounded rectangular weights is the dominant feature, and that minor differences in spacing or surface detail do not change this impression for an ordinary observer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff argues that specific features shown in solid lines in the drawings are required elements of the claim. The consistent depiction of the bars touching in Figures 1 and 4-7 may be argued to limit the claim to a design where the bars abut (Compl. ¶20; ’167 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). Similarly, the precise line patterns on the surfaces are explicitly drawn and may be argued as limitations that the Plaintiff's product lacks (Compl. ¶25-26; ’167 Patent, FIG. 9).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity - Functionality: The complaint alleges that the ’167 Patent is invalid because the claimed design is "primarily functional in nature" and therefore not eligible for design patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 171 (Compl. ¶11-12, 34).
  • Invalidity - Prior Art: The complaint alleges the patent is invalid as anticipated or obvious in light of prior art, specifically citing Korean Design Registration 30-0934806, which allegedly "disclosed near identical design pattern" (Compl. ¶13, 35). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the prior art registration and Figure 4 of the ’167 Patent to support this allegation (Compl. ¶35).
  • State Law Claims: Plaintiff also brings claims for violation of New York General Business Law § 349, alleging Defendants engaged in deceptive acts by filing a "frivolous complaint to Amazon" (Compl. ¶38), and for tortious interference with its business relationships with Amazon and its customers (Compl. ¶49).

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

This declaratory judgment action presents several fundamental questions for design patent law that the court will need to resolve.

  • A core issue will be one of infringement scope: In applying the ordinary observer test, are the alleged differences in the Plaintiff's product—specifically the gaps between bars and the different surface line patterns—sufficient to distinguish its overall visual appearance from the patented design, or are these minor variations that fail to prevent observer confusion?
  • A key validity question will be one of ornamentality versus functionality: Does the claimed design for the weighted band convey a visual impression that is primarily ornamental, or are its features, such as the segmentation and shape of the weights, dictated by its function as a flexible exercise weight, rendering it ineligible for design patent protection?
  • A final validity question will be one of novelty: Does the cited Korean Design Registration disclose a design so similar to the ’167 Patent's claimed design that it would have rendered the design anticipated or obvious to a designer of ordinary skill at the time of invention?