DCT

2:10-cv-00038

Greene v. Ab Coaster Holdings Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Brian Greene, Penny Greene, and Professional Billing Consultants, Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: AB Coaster Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP
Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00038, S.D. Ohio, 01/13/2010
Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their unspecified exercise equipment does not infringe, and that the claims are invalid for, seven of the Defendant's patents related to abdominal exercise machines.
Technical Context: The technology concerns exercise machines designed to isolate abdominal muscles by having a user move their lower body along a track or arm mechanism toward a stationary upper body support, simulating a "reverse crunch" motion.
Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was initiated in response to a letter dated November 12, 2009, from the Defendant's counsel, which accused the Plaintiffs of infringing the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-05	Earliest Patent Priority Date (’404, ’633, ’079, ’263, ’445 Patents)
2007-06-19	U.S. Patent No. 7,232,404 Issues
2008-03-25	U.S. Patent No. D565,134 Issues
2008-11-25	U.S. Patent No. 7,455,633 Issues
2009-01-06	U.S. Patent No. D584,367 Issues
2009-02-03	U.S. Patent No. 7,485,079 Issues
2009-09-08	U.S. Patent No. 7,585,263 Issues
2009-11-03	U.S. Patent No. 7,611,445 Issues
2009-11-12	Defendant sends letter accusing Plaintiffs of infringement
2010-01-13	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,232,404 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

Issued: June 19, 2007

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional abdominal exercises like sit-ups as causing stress and strain on the head, neck, and back, while other exercise devices may ineffectively target abdominal muscles or overload hip-flexors, creating a risk of injury ('404 Patent, col. 1:21-54).
The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise machine featuring a sled that slides along an inclined track. A user places their shins on the sled and their forearms on a stationary, elevated upper body support. By contracting their abdominal muscles, the user pulls their knees up the track toward their chest, performing a controlled "reverse crunch." The upper body support can also be configured to pivot forward, simulating a traditional crunch motion simultaneously ('404 Patent, col. 2:35-56, Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This design purports to isolate the upper and lower abdominal muscles while maintaining a biometrically neutral position for the user's back and neck, thereby reducing the strain associated with traditional floor exercises ('404 Patent, col. 2:18-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claims of the '404 Patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
Independent Claim 1: An abdominal exercise machine comprising:
- a rear support;
- at least one track having a front portion and a back portion, where the back portion is attached to the rear support;
- a front support attached to the front portion of the track that elevates it approximately 6 inches off the ground;
- an upper body support attached to the front end of the track;
- a sled that can slide on the track;
- wherein the upper body support comprises an elevation bar attached to the track, a cross bar attached to the elevation bar, and at least one arm pad attached to the cross bar; and
- wherein the elevation bar is attached such that the sled can travel past the elevation bar on the track.
The complaint implicitly reserves the right to address all claims, including dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,455,633 - "Abdominal Exerciser Device"

Issued: November 25, 2008

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems of strain and ineffectiveness in conventional abdominal exercises as the '404 Patent ('633 Patent, col. 1:22-col. 2:6).
The Patented Solution: This patent builds upon the '404 Patent's concept by introducing an arcuate track instead of a straight, inclined one. The user's knees travel along a curved path, which is described as providing a more effective and safe "crunch style" motion that more naturally follows the body's movement and further reduces the ability for a user to "cheat" by using momentum ('633 Patent, col. 4:41-44; col. 5:53-62).
Technical Importance: The use of a curved track is presented as an improvement that more effectively simulates a rolling crunch motion, which is purported to better engage abdominal muscles while minimizing hip flexor involvement and back strain ('633 Patent, col. 5:53-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claims of the '633 Patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1). Independent claim 1 is representative.
Independent Claim 1: An abdominal exercise machine comprising:
- a rear support;
- at least one arcuate track having a front portion and a back portion, where the back portion is attached to the rear support;
- a front support attached to the front portion of the track that elevates it at least approximately 6 inches off the ground;
- an upper body support attached to the front portion of the track, comprising an elevation bar and at least one handle; and
- a sled that can slide on the at least one track.
The complaint implicitly reserves the right to address all claims, including dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,485,079 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

Issued: February 3, 2009
Technology Synopsis: This patent further refines the concept of an arcuate track by claiming specific ranges for the track's radius of curvature (e.g., "approximately 12 inches to approximately 72 inches") ('079 Patent, Claim 1). The claims also focus on the height of the track's center of curvature from the ground, tying the machine's geometry to specific dimensions.
Asserted Claims: All claims are implicitly at issue (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Plaintiffs' unspecified exercise machine of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent No. 7,585,263 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

Issued: September 8, 2009
Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an alternative mechanism to the sliding track. It describes a carriage connected to the frame by first and second non-parallel swing-arms, which guide the carriage along an arcuate path ('263 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). This achieves a similar curved motion without the use of rollers on a physical track.
Asserted Claims: All claims are implicitly at issue (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Plaintiffs' unspecified exercise machine of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,611,445 - "Abdominal Exercise Machine"

Issued: November 3, 2009
Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes a swing-arm based exercise machine. The claims focus on the combination of the swinging carriage, an angled upper body support, and the specific arcuate path the user traverses, beginning behind and ending in front of the upper body support ('445 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: All claims are implicitly at issue (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Plaintiffs' unspecified exercise machine of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent Nos. D565,134 and D584,367

Issued: March 25, 2008, and January 6, 2009
Technology Synopsis: These are design patents that claim the ornamental appearance of an abdominal exercise device. They protect the specific visual aesthetic of the machine, including its curves, proportions, and overall configuration, rather than its functional aspects (D'134 Patent, Claim; D'367 Patent, Claim).
Asserted Claims: The single claim of each design patent is at issue (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Plaintiffs' unspecified exercise machine of infringing these design patents (Compl. ¶¶27, 30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The complaint does not identify or describe the specific product(s) sold by the Plaintiffs that are the subject of this declaratory judgment action.
Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. The basis for the action is an accusation of infringement made by the Defendant in a pre-suit letter regarding Plaintiffs' unspecified activities (Compl. ¶9).
Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being one for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. It alleges that the Defendant, Ab Coaster Holdings, Inc., accused the Plaintiffs of infringement in a letter dated November 12, 2009 (Compl. ¶9). The specific infringement theories advanced by the Defendant are not detailed in the complaint.

Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: Given the lack of detail, the primary point of contention will be establishing the specific design and mechanism of action of the Plaintiffs' product. The entire non-infringement analysis depends on facts not present in the complaint.
- Scope Questions ('404 Patent): A central question for the court will likely be whether the Plaintiffs' product incorporates a "sled that can slide on the track" as required by the claims, or if it utilizes a distinct mechanism. The interpretation of whether the sled must "travel past the elevation bar" may also become a point of dispute.
- Technical Questions ('633 Patent): The analysis will likely focus on whether the Plaintiffs' product utilizes an "arcuate track." If it does, a key question will be whether that track's geometry and function fall within the scope of the claims, distinguishing it from a simple incline or other forms of movement. The same question applies to the related '079 patent and its specific radius limitations.
- Mechanism Questions ('263 and '445 Patents): For the patents directed to swing-arm mechanisms, the key dispute will be whether the Plaintiffs' product uses such a linkage system instead of a sliding track, and if so, whether it includes the specific non-parallel arm configuration claimed.
- Design Patent Questions (D'134 and D'367 Patents): The infringement analysis for the design patents will turn on whether an ordinary observer would find the overall ornamental appearance of the Plaintiffs' product to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a sled that can slide on the track" (from '404 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the mechanism of the '404 Patent. Its construction will determine whether products using different types of motion (e.g., rolling carriages with different wheel configurations, or mechanisms that do not purely "slide") are covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the patented invention from prior art or from the Plaintiffs' product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the sled as one that "slides or rolls along at least one track" ('404 Patent, col. 2:38-39), which may support construing "slide" to encompass rolling motion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiment describes "roller 128" which may be made of "metal, plastic with a metal or TEFLON® coating" ('404 Patent, col. 4:34-38). A party could argue that "slide" should be limited by these disclosed structures, particularly in contrast to other forms of movement.
The Term: "at least one arcuate track" (from '633 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The "arcuate" nature of the track is the key feature distinguishing the '633 Patent from prior art and its parent '404 Patent. The definition of "arcuate" will be central to determining infringement, as it must be distinguished from a simple straight or inclined track.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "arcuate" itself implies a curved path. A party might argue for any non-linear track to meet this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the curvature "can be circular, ellipsoid, parabolic, or any other curved shape that advantageously affects the abdominal and oblique muscles" ('633 Patent, col. 4:41-44). A defendant could argue this language, while providing examples, limits the scope to specific, mathematically defined curves rather than any arbitrary curve.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely revolve around three central questions for the court:

A primary evidentiary question will be the nature of the accused device. As the complaint provides no technical details of the Plaintiffs' product, the initial phase of the case will focus on establishing its precise structure and method of operation, which is the foundation for any subsequent legal analysis.
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms central to each patent family—such as "sled that can slide" for the track-based patents, "arcuate track" for the curved-track patents, and "non-parallel...swing-arms" for the linkage-based patents—be construed to read on the specific implementation used by the Plaintiffs' product?
A key question of validity will be whether the combination of known exercise machine elements (e.g., sliding carriages, upper body supports) as claimed in the patents would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, or whether any single prior art reference discloses all claimed elements.