DCT
4:24-cv-01888
Changzhou Maikesi Fitness Supplies Co Ltd v. Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Changzhou Maikesi Fitness Supplies Co., Ltd. d/b/a VEICK DIRECT; Danyang Shenghong Textile Co., Ltd d/b/a WHATAFIT (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-01888, N.D. Ohio, 10/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its principal place of business in the Northern District of Ohio.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their adjustable dumbbell products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to a weight selection mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adjustable dumbbells that allow users to quickly change the total weight by engaging or disengaging a series of weight plates using a selector mechanism.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was filed in response to Defendant's patent infringement accusations made through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Xpress (“APEX”) program. Plaintiffs allege Defendant misused the APEX process to target their product listings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-03 | ’983 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/677,150) |
| 2009-11-10 | ’983 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-10-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,614,983 - "Apparatus for Adjusting Weight Resistance to Exercise"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for continued improvement in mechanisms for selecting different combinations of weights on exercise dumbbells ('983 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable dumbbell system where a user can select a desired amount of weight by rotating a selector mechanism. This selector is mounted on the handle and rotates through a "cavity" formed by aligned notches in adjacent weight plates, thereby engaging a specific combination of plates to be lifted with the handle ('983 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-59).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for rapid adjustment of dumbbell weight without the need to manually add or remove individual plates and securing collars, a common feature of earlier free-weight systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on independent claim 1. The '983 Patent also contains independent claims 9 and 11 (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An exercise apparatus comprising:
- a liftable member with at least one weight supporting section;
- weights configured to be supported by the weight supporting section; and
- a weight selector rotatably mounted on the liftable member, configured for rotation about an axis extending lengthwise between adjacent weights and through a cavity defined between those weights.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional non-infringement grounds regarding other claims (Compl. ¶27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Adjustable Dumbbells" sold by Plaintiffs VEICK DIRECT and WHATAFIT on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶1). Specific product listings are identified by Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶15, 16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are adjustable dumbbells that allow a user to select a desired weight level. Illustration 1 depicts an adjustable dumbbell with multiple weight plates resting in a cradle, featuring a central handle and a dial mechanism for weight selection (Compl. ¶15, p. 4). Illustration 2 shows a similar product under the WHATAFIT brand (Compl. ¶16, p. 5).
- The complaint states that the Amazon marketplace is Plaintiffs' primary sales channel in the United States and that the products are known for their "quality and dependability at an affordable price" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’983 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An exercise apparatus, comprising: | The complaint does not contest that the Adjustable Dumbbells are an exercise apparatus. | ¶24 | col. 5:41 |
| a liftable member having at least one weight supporting section; | The complaint does not contest that the Adjustable Dumbbells contain this element. | ¶24 | col. 2:39-41 |
| weights sized and configured to be supported by the at least one weight supporting section; | The complaint alleges this element is not met by the Adjustable Dumbbells. | ¶25 | col. 2:33-34 |
| a weight selector rotatably mounted on the liftable member for rotation about an axis extending lengthwise between adjacent said weights, wherein the weight selector is configured for rotation through a cavity defined between adjacent said weights. | The complaint alleges this element is not met by the Adjustable Dumbbells. | ¶25 | col. 4:60-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The primary technical question is how the Plaintiffs' "Adjustable Dumbbells" function to select weight. The complaint makes the conclusory allegation that elements 1[B] and 1[C] are not met but provides no technical description of the products' actual mechanism to support this assertion (Compl. ¶25).
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises a question about the scope of claim 1[C]. Specifically, the meaning of a weight selector that is "configured for rotation through a cavity defined between adjacent said weights" will be central. The court may need to determine if this requires the specific structure shown in the patent's embodiments (a selector plate passing through aligned cutouts in the weights) or if it can be construed more broadly.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a weight selector ... configured for rotation through a cavity defined between adjacent said weights"
- Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 1[C] is the core of the non-infringement argument presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶25). The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused products' selection mechanism falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes the central inventive concept of how the handle engages the weights.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent notes that "Different arrangements and/or combinations may be used to bias the knobs ... and/or to lock the knobs," which could suggest that the invention is not strictly limited to the precise mechanical implementation shown in the figures (e.g., ’983 Patent, col. 5:53-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific arrangement where weight plates (180, 190) have notches (181, 191) that align to form a "cylindrical cavity," and a semi-circular selector plate (166) physically "rotates through" this cavity to engage or disengage the weights (’983 Patent, col. 4:60-67; Figs. 8-9). This specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to mechanisms where the selector passes through a channel formed by the plates themselves.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement; no allegations of indirect infringement are made against the Plaintiffs.
- Willful Infringement: No allegations of willfulness are made against the Plaintiffs. However, the complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in "inequitable conduct by purposefully and willfully leveraging the Amazon Patent Evaluation Xpress ('APEX') process" to make "baseless Amazon Infringement Complaints" (Compl. ¶18, 20). These allegations form the basis for Plaintiffs' request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle them to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 8).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on the following core questions:
- A central question of claim construction: What is the proper scope of the claim phrase "rotation through a cavity defined between adjacent said weights"? Does it require a selector to physically pass through a channel formed by the body of the weight plates, as depicted in the patent's figures, or can it encompass other rotational selection mechanisms?
- A key evidentiary and factual question: What is the precise mechanism of operation of the Plaintiffs' "Adjustable Dumbbells"? The resolution of the infringement question will depend entirely on a technical comparison between that mechanism and the court's construction of the asserted claims, a comparison for which the complaint currently provides no specific facts.
- An equitable question regarding litigation conduct: Do the complaint's allegations about the Defendant's use of the Amazon APEX system rise to the level of conduct that would make this an "exceptional case," potentially justifying an award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs?