Inzer Advance Designs Inc v. Mathis

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Inzer Advance Designs, Inc. (Texas)
  • Defendant: April Mathis d/b/a Mathis Enterprises (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00171, S.D. Ohio, 03/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendant's residence within the Southern District of Ohio.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "True Iron Brand" weightlifting wraps infringe a utility patent and a design patent related to wraps with enhanced gripping features.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance elastic wraps used in powerlifting to provide joint support and kinetic energy rebound, where preventing slippage between layers is critical for safety and effectiveness.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the alleged infringement via a letter and email dated February 7, 2025, which may form the basis for its willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-28	Earliest Priority Date for '594 and '558 Patents
2015-02-15	'558 Design Patent Application Filed
2017-04-28	'594 Patent Application Filed
2018-02-20	'594 Patent Issued
2019-05-14	'558 Design Patent Issued
2025-02-07	Pre-suit Notice Letter Sent to Defendant
2025-03-18	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,895,594 - "Weightlifting Wrap," Issued Feb. 20, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes problems with conventional weightlifting wraps, including slippage between wrapped layers which can limit support and cause instability, and the inconvenience of using external aids like "gym chalk" or "sticky-spray" to improve grip (ʼ594 Patent, col. 1:41-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a weightlifting wrap with "exposed elongate pliable strand members" integrated into its outer surface. These strands create a high-friction surface that grips the preceding layer of the wrap, preventing slippage, while the bulk of the strand material provides a "superior rebound effect" during joint flexion (ʼ594 Patent, col. 3:51-60; col. 4:5-13). Figure 3 illustrates an embodiment with two bands of these exposed strands running longitudinally along the wrap (ʼ594 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to enhance lifter safety and performance by providing more stable joint support and increased kinetic energy return, while improving convenience by obviating the need for messy grip aids (ʼ594 Patent, col. 4:50-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A weightlifting wrap constructed of a stretchable woven material,
  • said weightlifting wrap including a plurality of exposed elongate pliable strand members on at least one outer surface of said weightlifting wrap,
  • said plurality of elongate pliable strand members being arranged into at least two separate bands on at least one of said outer surfaces of said weightlifting wrap,
  • each of said bands comprising a plurality of adjacent rows of said elongate pliable strand members.
• The complaint's allegation of infringement of "at least Claim 1" suggests the possibility that dependent claims may be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. ¶20).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D848,558 - "Weightlifting Wrap," Issued May 14, 2019

Technology Synopsis

• The '558 Design Patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design of a weightlifting wrap. The claimed design, as shown in the patent's figures, consists of the visual appearance of the wrap, which features two distinct, textured bands running along its length ('558 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 6).

Asserted Claims

• The complaint asserts infringement of the single claim of the '558 Design Patent (Compl. ¶46).

Accused Features

• The overall visual appearance of the Accused Products is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶31). The complaint provides a table comparing figures it identifies as being from the '558 Design Patent with images of the Accused Products to allege substantial similarity (Compl. ¶32, p. 7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are the "True Iron Brand Powerlifting Heavy Duty Gripper Wrist Wraps (Pair) - 36"", "Gripper Elbow Wraps (Pair)- 2 Meters," and "Gripper Knee Wraps (Pair)- 3 Meters" (collectively, "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are weightlifting wraps made of stretchable woven material (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). The complaint includes a photograph of the "Accused Wrist Wrap," which depicts a blue elastic wrap with two parallel gray stripes and a hook-and-loop fastener (Compl. ¶17, p. 3). The complaint further alleges that the gray-colored portions on the outer surface of the wraps constitute the infringing "pliable strand members" arranged in bands (Compl. ¶22, ¶24).
• The Accused Products are allegedly offered for sale by Defendant through an eBay store operating under the name Mathis Enterprises (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'594 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A weightlifting wrap constructed of a stretchable woven material...	The Accused Products are alleged to be "weightlifting wraps" made of "stretchable woven material" (Compl. ¶26).	¶21, ¶26	col. 5:5-6
said weightlifting wrap including a plurality of exposed elongate pliable strand members on at least one outer surface of said weightlifting wrap...	The complaint alleges that the Accused Products include these members, identifying them in product images as the "gray-colored portions" which are "clearly visible on one of the outer surfaces of the band."	¶22, ¶23	col. 4:65-67
said plurality of elongate pliable strand members being arranged into at least two separate bands on at least one of said outer surfaces...	The complaint asserts that the product images show the "gray-colored strand members are arranged into two separate bands."	¶24	col. 5:35-38
each of said bands comprising a plurality of adjacent rows of said elongate pliable strand members.	Based on the product images, the complaint alleges that the "adjacent rows of such members are clearly visible in the gray-colored bands, and those bands are made up of adjacent rows of such members." The complaint provides a visual of the "Accused Elbow Wrap," showing two distinct bands on the product (Compl. ¶17, p. 4).	¶25	col. 5:38-41

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A question for the court may be whether the "gray-colored portions" of the Accused Products meet the definition of "elongate pliable strand members." The complaint does not specify the material or construction of these portions, and their composition will be a key factual issue.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation that the gray bands are comprised of a "plurality of adjacent rows" of "strand members" appears to be based on visual inspection of product photographs (Compl. ¶25). A point of contention may be whether the physical construction of the accused wraps actually features distinct "rows" of "strands" as described in the patent (e.g., interwoven loops, '594 Patent, col. 5:19-34), or if it is a different type of textured surface.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "elongate pliable strand members"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as Defendant may argue that the surface features of its products are not "strand members" but are, for instance, a unitary textured material or a coating.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not limit the "strand members" to a specific material. Dependent claim 5 recites "synthetic rubber," which suggests the independent claim's scope is not so limited. The term "strand" itself could be argued to have a broad, ordinary meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that in an embodiment, an "individual elongate pliable member...ingresses into the outer fabric...and extends a distance below the surface" before egressing, forming a series of loops ('594 Patent, col. 5:23-29). A party could argue this specific interwoven construction is required to be a "strand member."

• The Term: "a plurality of adjacent rows"

• Context and Importance: The claim requires that the bands be comprised of these rows. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused product's surface texture can be factually characterized as being constructed from multiple, adjacent "rows."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "row" is not explicitly defined, leaving it open to its plain and ordinary meaning as a line of things.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly the cross-section in Figure 7, depict "rows" as discrete, parallel lines of strand loops ('594 Patent, Fig. 7). A party could argue that a "row" must have this distinct, organized structure, rather than a more random or homogenous texture.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement, focusing its allegations on direct infringement by Defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶38).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of both the '594 and '558 patents based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. It specifically cites a notice letter sent via FedEx and email on February 7, 2025, and alleges prior, unanswered communications to the Defendant's eBay account (Compl. ¶34, ¶40, ¶48).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: does the physical construction of the accused wraps' gray-colored bands feature a "plurality of adjacent rows" of "elongate pliable strand members" as required by Claim 1 of the '594 Patent, or is it a different structure, such as a single piece of textured material applied to the wrap?
• A key issue for the design patent claim will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: the complaint's infringement comparison for the '558 Design Patent uses figures that appear to be from the '594 utility patent (Compl. ¶32, p. 7). The court will have to determine whether this presentation adequately pleads that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design actually claimed in the '558 patent itself.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "elongate pliable strand members," which the patent specification describes in one embodiment as individually interwoven loops, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific material and structure used in the accused "True Iron Brand" wraps?