DCT
4:24-cv-01924
Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co Ltd v. Gayetsky
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yongkang Jiebao Industrial & Trade Co Ltd (People's Republic of China)
- Defendants: Michael Gayetsky (Ohio), Core Home Fitness, L.L.C. (Nevada), and Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aptum Law
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-01924, N.D. Ohio, 11/04/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants residing in the district (Youngstown, Ohio) and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurring there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a manufacturer of adjustable dumbbells, seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendants' U.S. Patent No. 7,614,983 and alleges that Defendants' patent enforcement activities on Amazon.com constitute tortious interference with business relationships.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for adjustable dumbbells, a segment of the home fitness equipment industry where designs allowing for rapid weight changes are a key feature.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from Defendants' alleged use of Amazon's patent enforcement procedures (including the "APEX" process) to have Plaintiff's products delisted. The complaint states that Defendants are non-practicing entities, that the '983 Patent was assigned to Defendant Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC in 2020, and that Plaintiff obtained a patent invalidity and non-infringement opinion from a U.S. patent attorney prior to filing this action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-03 | '983 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. No. 60/677,150) |
| 2009-11-10 | '983 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-09-06 | '983 Patent assigned from inventor to Core Health & Fitness, LLC |
| 2020-07-30 | '983 Patent assigned from Core Health & Fitness, LLC to Bruno Intellectual Reserve LLC |
| 2024-08-01 | Defendants allegedly began filing infringement complaints against Plaintiff's products on Amazon.com (approximate date) |
| 2024-09-01 | Plaintiff obtained patent invalidity and non-infringement opinion (approximate date) |
| 2024-11-04 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,614,983 - Apparatus for Adjusting Weight Resistance to Exercise, issued November 10, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that despite advances in adjustable weight equipment, "room for continued improvement remains with respect to selecting different combinations of weight for use on exercise dumbbells" (’983 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a mechanism for quickly selecting weight plates to be lifted with a dumbbell handle (’983 Patent, col. 1:39-44). The system uses a rotatable "weight selector" mounted on the handle that passes through a "cylindrical cavity" formed by aligned notches in a stack of weight plates (’983 Patent, col. 1:52-58). By rotating the selector, a user can engage or disengage specific plates, thereby securing a desired amount of mass to the handle for lifting (’983 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a convenient and efficient method for adjusting dumbbell weight, a significant usability feature in the consumer fitness market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to all claims, with a focus on independent claims 1, 9, and 11 (Compl. ¶47-49, 51-52).
- Independent Claim 1:
- An exercise apparatus, comprising:
- a liftable member having at least one weight supporting section;
- weights sized and configured to be supported by the at least one weight supporting section;
- 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.
- Independent Claim 9:
- An exercise apparatus, comprising:
- a weight lifting member having at least one weight supporting section;
- weights sized and configured to be supported by the at least one weight supporting section, wherein notches in the weights cooperate to define a cavity having upwardly open sectors and upwardly closed sectors; and
- a weight selector rotatably mounted on the weight lifting member for rotation inside the cavity,
- wherein the weight selector defines a rotational axis, and includes a plate having a generally semi-circular shape when viewed axially.
- Independent Claim 11:
- An exercise apparatus, comprising:
- a weight lifting member having at least one weight supporting section;
- weights sized and configured to be supported by the at least one weight supporting section, wherein notches in the weights cooperate to define a cavity having upwardly open sectors and upwardly closed sectors; and
- a weight selector, rotatably mounted on the weight lifting member for rotation inside the cavity, wherein the weight selector is rotatable between a first orientation underlying only one of the weights, and a second orientation underlying only another of the weights.
- The complaint reserves the right to address dependent claims 2-8 and 10 (Compl. ¶52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are adjustable dumbbells designed, manufactured, and sold by the Plaintiff, Yongkang Jiebao (Compl. ¶22, ¶24). The complaint identifies specific product models via a list of 37 Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) in Table 1 (Compl. ¶31, Table 1).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are adjustable dumbbells sold through the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶23). An image provided in the complaint shows one such product, which consists of a handle, a cradle, and a set of weight plates (Compl. p. 6). The complaint includes a photograph showing the "Weight Selecting Devices" of the Accused Products, which appear to be circular discs, separate from the weights themselves (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges that these products compete with those sold by Defendant Core Home Fitness, L.L.C. (Compl. ¶42).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and makes several conclusory assertions that the Accused Products do not meet specific claim limitations. The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element analysis of its non-infringement theory. The table below summarizes the elements that the Plaintiff specifically identifies as not being met (Compl. ¶51).
'983 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claims 1 & 9) | Plaintiff’s Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a weight selector rotatably mounted on the liftable member for rotation about an axis extending lengthwise between adjacent said weights (Claim 1[c]) | The complaint alleges this limitation is not met, but does not specify how the accused selector's mounting or rotation differs from the claim language. | ¶51 | col. 5:42-46 |
| wherein notches in the weights cooperate to define a cavity having upwardly open sectors and upwardly closed sectors (Claim 9[c]) | The complaint alleges this limitation is not met, but does not describe the configuration of the accused weights or any corresponding cavity. | ¶51 | col. 7:12-14 |
| a weight selector rotatably mounted on the weight lifting member for rotation inside the cavity (Claim 9[d]) | The complaint alleges this limitation is not met, but provides no detail on where the accused selector is mounted or how it rotates relative to the weights. | ¶51 | col. 7:15-17 |
| includes a plate having a generally semi-circular shape when viewed axially (Claim 9[e]) | The complaint alleges this limitation is not met. A supporting visual shows the accused "Weight Selecting Devices" as being circular, not semi-circular. The image "The Accused Products' Weight Selecting Devices – disassembled view" depicts four circular selecting plates. | ¶51; p. 6 | col. 7:19-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute over claim 1[c] may raise the question of whether the accused selector rotates "between adjacent said weights" as the claim requires, or if it operates in a structurally different manner.
- Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will be whether the accused product’s circular weight selectors, as depicted in the complaint (Compl. p. 6), can be read on the claim limitation requiring a "generally semi-circular shape" (’983 Patent, col. 7:20-21). The complaint’s own visual evidence suggests a direct structural difference.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "generally semi-circular shape" (Claims 9 and 11)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's visual evidence appears to show a circular weight selector, creating a potential mismatch with the claim language. The outcome of the non-infringement analysis for claims 9 and 11 may hinge on the construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "generally" may be argued to accommodate some deviation from a perfect semi-circle. However, the specification does not appear to provide language supporting a construction that would encompass a fully circular shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes and illustrates a semi-circular selector. Figure 6 shows a selector plate (166) with a "semi-circular portion 167" (’983 Patent, col. 4:49-54, Fig. 6). This clear depiction and description may support a narrower construction that excludes fully circular selectors.
VI. Other Allegations
- Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship: The complaint includes a state law cause of action for tortious interference (Compl. ¶56-63). Plaintiff alleges that (1) it has a business relationship with its Amazon customers; (2) Defendants knew of this relationship; (3) Defendants intentionally interfered by filing "false patent infringement complaints" with Amazon; and (4) this interference caused harm, including delisting of products and lost sales (Compl. ¶58-63). A central allegation is that Defendants "knew or should have known that Plaintiff's accused product does not infringe the '983 Patent" (Compl. ¶60a).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "generally semi-circular shape", as used in claims 9 and 11 and illustrated in the patent's figures, be construed broadly enough to read on the apparently circular weight selectors of the Accused Products?
- Factual and Structural Equivalence: A key evidentiary question for claim 1 will be whether the Accused Products' selection mechanism is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed "weight selector... configured for rotation through a cavity defined between adjacent said weights," or if there is a fundamental operational difference.
- State of Mind and Business Torts: Beyond patent law, the case presents a significant question regarding commercial conduct: did Defendants' enforcement of the '983 Patent on Amazon constitute tortious interference, particularly in light of Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants knew or should have known of the non-infringement? The resolution of this claim will depend on evidence of Defendants' knowledge and intent.