DCT
2:18-cv-00731
Jump Rope Systems LLC v. Coulter Ventures LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jump Rope Systems, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sebaly Shillito + Dyer; Limpus + Limpus, PC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00731, S.D. Ohio, 07/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Ohio based on Defendant's headquarters and principal place of business being located within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of speed jump ropes infringes two patents related to a handle system incorporating a rotatable shaft and a pivoting cable connection mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance "speed jump ropes," which are designed to enable extremely fast rotation for athletic training and competition, particularly in fitness disciplines like CrossFit.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first put Defendant on notice of potential infringement of the ’809 Patent in August 2011, with subsequent communications in 2012 and 2015. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit were challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In decisions dated August 3, 2022, all asserted claims of both the ’809 Patent (IPR2019-00586) and the ’208 Patent (IPR2019-00587) were cancelled, rendering the patents unenforceable.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-04-01 | Priority Date for ’809 and ’208 Patents |
| 2010-09-07 | ’809 Patent Issue Date |
| August 2011 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of ’809 Patent |
| 2012-03-20 | ’208 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-12-12 | Plaintiff allegedly sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2015-04-20 | Plaintiff allegedly sends second notice letter to Defendant |
| 2018-07-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2019-01-17 | IPR Petitions Filed Against ’809 and ’208 Patents |
| 2022-08-03 | All Asserted Claims of ’809 and ’208 Patents Cancelled via IPR |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,789,809 - "Jump Rope System," Issued September 7, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional jump ropes as suffering from problems that limit rotation speed, including rotational resistance within the handle, suboptimal cable attachment points, and a failure to allow the cable to both swivel on its axis and pivot relative to the handle during use (’809 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a jump rope handle system designed to overcome these limitations. It features a shaft that rotates smoothly within the handle via bearing elements. At the outward end of this shaft, a "blade element" holds a "ball element" to which the rope cable is attached. This ball-and-socket-like mechanism is designed to allow the cable to pivot and swivel freely, which minimizes resistance and allows for a higher rate of turn (’809 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-64).
- Technical Importance: By enabling a smoother and faster spin, the technology aims to improve performance for skilled activities like competitive jump roping (’809 Patent, col. 1:6-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- a pair of handles, each comprising:
- a shaft rotatably journaled in at least one bearing element;
- a handle adapted to retain the shaft;
- a blade element coupled to the shaft and extending outward from the handle;
- a ball element pivotally coupled within an aperture of the blade element; and
- a cable element coupled to the ball element.
- a pair of handles, each comprising:
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,136,208 - "Handle System," Issued March 20, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’208 Patent addresses the limitations of conventional jump rope handles, such as rotational resistance and cable configuration issues that inhibit the speed at which the rope can be turned (’208 Patent, col. 1:20-48).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a handle assembly that houses a shaft rotating in at least one bearing. The key feature is the end of the shaft, which extends from the handle and comprises a "blade element" with an aperture. A "ball element" is pivotally coupled within this aperture, providing a multi-axis connection point for the jump rope cable (’208 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-65).
- Technical Importance: The described handle system is intended to facilitate higher jump rope spin rates for skilled users (’208 Patent, col. 1:10-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A handle which retains a shaft rotatably journaled in at least one bearing element;
- A first shaft end extending outward from the handle, comprising a blade element that bounds an aperture element;
- A ball element pivotally coupled within the aperture element, adapted to couple to a cable element.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies fourteen models of speed jump ropes sold by Defendant as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶27). These include, among others, the "Froning SR-1F Speed Rope," "Rogue PRO Jump Rope," and various models in the "SR-1," "SR-2," and "SR-2S" series (Compl. ¶¶ 28-39).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are described as "speed jump ropes" featuring mechanisms for high-speed rotation (Compl. ¶26). For example, the product page for the "Froning SR-1F Speed Rope" highlights its "high-precision bearing system" that "allows for top-end revolutions" (Compl. ¶28). The "Rogue PRO Aluminum Jump Rope" is described as having a "ball-bearing, swivel design for maximum omni-directional rotation" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Froning SR-1F Speed Rope" which shows the handle, cable, and the connection mechanism extending from the handle's end (Compl. ¶28). The products are positioned for the high-performance fitness market, with marketing materials referencing their suitability for "double-under demands" and their development with CrossFit champions (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain all elements of the asserted claims but does not provide a detailed element-by-element mapping (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 56). The following charts summarize the likely infringement theory based on the complaint's general allegations and the product descriptions provided.
’809 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a shaft rotatably journaled in at least one bearing element | The accused ropes' "high-precision bearing system" and "rotating handles" that allow for "top-end revolutions" | ¶28 | col. 2:46-49 |
| a handle adapted to retain said shaft rotatably journaled in said at least one bearing element | The body of the accused jump rope handle which houses the rotating shaft and bearing assembly | ¶28 | col. 4:47-52 |
| a blade element coupled to said shaft, said blade element extending axially from said shaft a distance outward from said handle | The connector piece that extends from the end of the handle, which attaches the cable to the rotating shaft | ¶28 | col. 5:12-24 |
| a ball element pivotally coupled within an aperture of said blade element a distance from said handle | The eyelet or swivel mechanism housed within the connector piece, described as having a "swivel design for maximum omni-directional rotation" | ¶30 | col. 6:45-58 |
| a cable element having one of a pair opposed ends coupled to said ball element | The polyurethane or nylon-coated cable attached to the swivel mechanism | ¶28 | col. 6:64-66 |
’208 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A handle which retains within a shaft rotatably journaled in at least one bearing element | The accused ropes' handle containing a "bearing system" which allows the shaft to rotate | ¶29 | col. 4:51-56 |
| a first shaft end extending axially outward of said handle, wherein said first shaft end comprises a blade element which bounds an aperture element at a distance from said handle | The portion of the rotating mechanism that extends from the handle and includes a connector with an opening for the swivel | ¶29 | col. 5:15-28 |
| a ball element pivotally coupled within said aperture element, said ball element adapted to couple to a cable element | The "360-degree swivel design" within the connector's opening, to which the rope cable is attached | ¶29 | col. 6:50-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute would likely concern the proper construction of the patent-specific terms "blade element" and "ball element." The question is whether the various swivel and eyelet connectors on the Accused Products, such as the one visible on the "Spealler SR-1S Speed Rope 2.0" (Compl. ¶34), fall within the scope of these terms as defined and described in the patents.
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is whether the accused products' swivel mechanisms function in the same way as the claimed "ball element pivotally coupled within an aperture." The patents disclose a specific ball-and-socket type joint, and it would be a matter of technical proof whether the accused mechanisms are structurally and functionally equivalent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "blade element"
- Context and Importance: This is a patentee-coined term, not a standard term of art. Its construction is critical because it defines the structure that connects the rotating shaft to the pivoting cable connector. A narrow construction could limit the claim to the specific shapes shown in the patent figures, whereas a broader construction could cover a wider variety of connectors.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the element as providing "a pair of generally circular... or rectangular... planar surfaces disposed in substantially opposed parallel relation" (’809 Patent, col. 5:16-20). This language could support an interpretation covering any connector with two generally parallel sides.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states the blade element's width "prevents or limits axial travel through the annulus... of the second bearing element" (’809 Patent, col. 5:20-23). A party could argue this functional language limits the term to structures that perform this specific blocking function in relation to an internal bearing.
Term 2: "ball element pivotally coupled"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific pivoting mechanism at the heart of the invention. The infringement analysis for all accused products will likely depend on whether their swivel connectors meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself suggests any component with a ball-like shape that is coupled to allow for pivotal movement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly provides an example: "the ball (54) pivotally coupled to the first shaft end (34) can be provided by utilization of a Ball Link available from Du-bro Products, Inc." (’809 Patent, col. 6:50-53). A defendant would likely argue that this disclosure limits the scope of "ball element" to this specific off-the-shelf component or its direct structural equivalent, not to any generic swivel.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of" the patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 23, ¶C). The factual basis for such a claim would presumably be Defendant's sale of the Accused Products with knowledge and intent that its customers would use them in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 58). The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from communications that allegedly began in August 2011, when Plaintiff's inventor contacted Defendant’s founder regarding the ’809 Patent, and continued with notice letters in 2012 and 2015 (Compl. ¶¶ 18-24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
While the subsequent cancellation of all asserted claims is the dispositive event in this dispute, the case as originally filed presented several key questions for the court. The resolution of the infringement allegations would have depended on the answers to these central issues:
A core issue would be one of definitional scope: How would the court construe the non-standard terms "blade element" and "ball element"? Would the meaning be constrained to the specific "Ball Link" hardware disclosed as an example in the specification, or would it be interpreted more broadly to encompass the various types of swivels and eyelets used in modern speed ropes?
A key question of infringement would follow: Based on the established claim construction, do the accused products—which are advertised as having "bearing" and "swivel" designs for "omni-directional rotation"—actually contain structures that meet the specific limitations of a "ball element pivotally coupled within an aperture" as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their structure and operation?