DCT
7:25-cv-06281
JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Kira Stokes Fit LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: JFXD TRX ACQ LLC, dba TRX (Florida)
- Defendant: KIRA STOKES FIT LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Duane Morris LLP
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-06281, S.D.N.Y., 07/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed acts of infringement in the district, including through sales on its website.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Stoked Grips" exercise handles infringe a design patent covering the ornamental design of Plaintiff's BANDIT® exercise handle.
- Technical Context: The technology is in the field of fitness accessories, specifically handles designed to be used with elastic resistance bands for strength training.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in 2024, the asserted patent was found valid, enforceable, and infringed in a separate litigation in the Western District of Washington, resulting in a Final Judgment and Order against a third party.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-11-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928 |
| 2023-03-14 | U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928 Issued |
| 2024-07-22 | Final Judgment in prior litigation involving the ’928 Patent |
| 2025-01-XX | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of infringement via email |
| 2025-02-17 | Defendant allegedly responded that the matter was under legal review |
| 2025-07-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928, titled “Exercise Band Handle,” issued March 14, 2023.
U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928 - "Exercise Band Handle"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific technical problem, but instead frames the invention as a "unique design" for a "hand-held handle for use in tandem with exercise bands" created by a "famous inventor" (Compl. ¶10). The patent itself is directed toward protecting the ornamental appearance of such a handle.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for an exercise band handle. Key features shown in the solid lines of the patent figures include a generally cylindrical handle with flared, disc-like ends, a central opening running through the handle to accommodate an exercise band, and a specific surface texture on the main gripping portion ('928 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 5). The patent specification notes that broken lines in the drawings are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design ('928 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is for a "practical gym tool" that is part of the TRX brand's ecosystem of "industry-leading fitness products" (Compl. ¶5, 10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the patent is for "The ornamental design for an exercise band handle, as shown and described" ('928 Patent, col. 1:53-54).
- The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. Key ornamental features include:
- The overall configuration and shape of the handle.
- The flared, circular end caps.
- The central, non-circular opening for a band.
- The surface pattern on the grip portion.
- The proportions of these elements relative to one another.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Stoked Grips" handle (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The "Stoked Grips" are described as "handles for use with resistance bands" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint provides an image from Defendant's website showing the accused product in use, which is a woman performing a bent-over row exercise with resistance bands threaded through the handles (Compl. ¶20). This image depicts a use identical to that shown for Plaintiff's own product (Compl. ¶11).
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Product "directly competes" with Plaintiff's BANDIT® handle and is "advertised and sold at a fraction of the price" (Compl. ¶27-28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the designs are "substantially the same" (Compl. ¶23).
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from the '928 Patent Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from the "Stoked Grips") | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for an exercise band handle, as shown and described | The complaint alleges the overall design of the "Stoked Grips" product is substantially the same as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The complaint provides side-by-side images to support this. | ¶23 | col. 1:53-54 |
| Substantially cylindrical shape with flared end portions | The Accused Product is alleged to have a "substantially the same cylindrical shape, [and] flared end portions." An image of the accused product shows a dark, cylindrical grip with lighter, flared end caps. | ¶24, 22 | FIG. 1, 3 |
| Central opening | The Accused Product is alleged to have a "central cylindrical opening with flattened portion." This feature is visible in the provided image of the accused product. | ¶24, 22 | FIG. 5, 7 |
| Color contrast between central gripping portion and flared ends | The complaint alleges that the Accused Product exhibits "color contrast between the gray flared end portions and the dark central gripping portion." The patent states that "The black portions of the drawings represent color contrast in the design." | ¶24 | col. 1:65-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement test centers on the overall visual impression. A question for the court will be whether the differences between the designs, such as the hexagonal surface pattern on the accused product versus the stippled pattern shown in the patent drawings, are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived. The complaint includes an image of the Accused Product showing its hexagonal grip pattern (Compl. ¶22).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of "color contrast," citing a statement in the patent that black portions "represent color contrast" (Compl. ¶24; ’928 Patent, col. 1:65-67). A legal and factual question will be how much weight, if any, is given to this alleged similarity in "color contrast" when the patent does not claim any specific colors as part of the ornamental design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself, and construction focuses on what features shown in the drawings are ornamental and part of the claimed design.
- The Term: "The ornamental design...as shown and described"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed visual design. The court's construction will determine which visual aspects of the patent drawings are compared to the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this because the distinction between ornamental features (protected) and purely functional features (unprotected) is a common battleground in design patent litigation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown," which encompasses the overall visual impression created by all elements depicted in solid lines, including the general shape, proportions, and configuration of the handle and its end caps ('928 Patent, FIG. 1-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly disclaims matter shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" ('928 Patent, col. 1:63-65). This could be used to argue that the precise details shown in the solid lines, such as the specific stippled surface texture, are strict limitations of the claim's scope, potentially distinguishing it from the accused product's hexagonal pattern.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having actual notice of the ’928 Patent. Plaintiff alleges it sent an email to Defendant in January 2025 notifying it of the infringement, and that Defendant continued to sell the Accused Product after acknowledging receipt of the communication (Compl. ¶17-18, 36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of overall visual impression: Applying the ordinary observer test, are the similarities in the overall shape, proportions, and configuration of the accused "Stoked Grips" handle sufficient to outweigh the clear differences in surface ornamentation (hexagonal vs. stippled), such that an observer would be deceived?
- A key legal and factual question will be the role of unclaimed features: How will the court treat the alleged similarity in "color contrast," a feature the patent identifies but does not formally claim, in the overall infringement analysis? The resolution may depend on whether this contrast is deemed a part of the core "ornamental design" perceived by the ordinary observer.
- An evidentiary question will be the impact of prior litigation: Plaintiff cites a prior judgment affirming the patent's validity and infringement against a different product (Compl. ¶16). A question will be how, if at all, the court considers that prior outcome and the willfulness allegations stemming from Plaintiff’s notice to Defendant in this separate dispute.