DCT

2:21-cv-01608

Coulter Ventures LLC v. Dick's Sporting Goods Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-01608, S.D. Ohio, 04/07/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Ohio because Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. has a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there, including through sales at a specific retail location.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ETHOS brand of folding wall racks infringes one utility patent and three design patents related to space-saving, wall-mounted weightlifting assemblies and their component parts.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the competitive home and commercial fitness equipment market, where foldable, wall-mounted racks offer a space-saving solution for strength training in multi-use areas like garages.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-11-02 Earliest Priority Date for ’661 Patent
2018-06-05 Filing Date for D'405 Patent
2018-06-05 Filing Date for D'216 Patent
2018-06-05 Filing Date for D'920 Patent
2019-03-12 U.S. Patent 10,226,661 Issued
2020-03-24 U.S. Design Patent D879,216 Issued
2020-05-05 U.S. Design Patent D883,405 Issued
2020-06-09 U.S. Design Patent D886,920 Issued
2021-04-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,226,661 - "Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of securely mounting foldable weightlifting racks to wall surfaces. Conventional mounting often requires adding horizontal support studs (stringers) to span between vertical wall studs, which increases the assembly's footprint and limits placement flexibility. (’661 Patent, col. 1:37-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a wall mount bracket system designed to solve this problem. It features a main central panel that is offset from top and bottom wall-mounting panels, creating a clearance space. This offset allows the pivot brackets for the rack arms to be attached to the central panel without the fasteners interfering with the wall surface behind it. (’661 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:25-29). The mounting panels include elongated slots, providing adjustability to align with inconsistently spaced wall studs. (’661 Patent, col. 6:4-9).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to simplify installation and increase versatility by allowing a foldable rack to be mounted directly to a wall's existing vertical studs without requiring additional, space-consuming support structures. (’661 Patent, col. 16:20-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-16, which includes independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 9 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Independent Claim 1 describes a weightlifting assembly comprising:
    • A first and second wall mount bracket, each having a central panel, offset top and bottom wall mount panels with elongated slots for wall fasteners, and angled offset panels connecting the central panel to the top and bottom panels.
    • A weightlifting rack assembly with brackets that connect to mounting regions on the central panels of the wall mount brackets.
  • Independent Claim 9 describes a method for mounting the assembly, comprising the steps of:
    • Mounting a first wall mount bracket to a wall at a first height.
    • Mounting a second wall mount bracket below the first.
    • Connecting a weightlifting rack assembly to both wall mount brackets.

U.S. Design Patent No. D883,405 - "Wall Mounted Exercise Rack"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a unique ornamental appearance for a complete, wall-mounted exercise rack assembly in its deployed, ready-to-use state.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of the exercise rack as shown in the solid lines of its figures. The design encompasses the overall configuration of the two vertical uprights, the upper and lower pivoting arms connecting the uprights to the wall mounts, and the specific look of the two horizontal wall mount brackets. (D'405 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer fitness market, a distinctive product design serves to create brand identity and differentiate a product from its competitors.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a wall mounted exercise rack, as shown and described" (D'405 Patent, Claim). The protected design is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings.

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D879,216

    • Patent Identification: D879,216, "Wall Mount," issued March 24, 2020.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a single wall mount bracket (or "stringer") component, separate from the rest of the exercise rack. The design is characterized by its specific shape, including a central panel, offset flanges with elongated slots, and cutouts.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim is asserted (Compl. ¶26).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the design of the wall mount brackets sold with the ETHOS folding wall rack infringes the D'216 patent (Compl. ¶27).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D886,920

    • Patent Identification: D886,920, "Set of Wall Mounts for Exercise Rack," issued June 9, 2020.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design of a set of two wall mount brackets as they would appear installed on a wall with the associated rack components (shown in broken lines) for context.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim is asserted (Compl. ¶34).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of the ETHOS folding wall rack products, including the set of wall mounts, infringes the D'920 patent (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as "at least its ETHOS folding wall racks" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The ETHOS folding wall rack is a strength training apparatus that mounts to a wall. It consists of two vertical uprights connected by pivoting arms to two horizontal wall-mounted brackets, often called stringers. (Compl. Illustrations 5, 6). This design allows the rack to be folded inward against the wall to conserve floor space when not in use. The complaint positions the ETHOS product as a direct competitor to Rogue's products, alleging it is a "blatant ripoff" and "looks exactly identical" based on side-by-side comparisons and purported consumer reviews. (Compl. ¶15; Illustration 9). The complaint includes a screenshot of a consumer review stating the accused product "looks exactly identical to the ROGUE fitness one for about 300 less," suggesting it is positioned as a lower-cost alternative. (Compl. Illustration 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of the accused ETHOS rack is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'405 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶19). A key piece of evidence presented is a side-by-side visual comparison of an image of the accused product and a figure from the D'405 patent. This visual, presented in Illustration 7 of the complaint, juxtaposes a marketing image of the ETHOS rack in use with FIG. 1 of the D'405 patent. (Compl. ¶15, Illustration 7).

'661 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first wall mount bracket configured for mounting to a wall surface, comprising: a first central panel... a first top wall mount panel... a first bottom wall mount panel... wherein the first top and bottom wall mount panels are offset from the first central panel... and first offset panels respectively extending between the first central panel and the first top wall mount panel and between the first central panel and the first bottom wall mount panel... The accused ETHOS product includes upper and lower horizontal wall mount brackets ("stringers"). The complaint's visual evidence suggests these stringers have a main central face, with top and bottom flanges that are offset from the central face and connected by angled sections. The close-up image of the ETHOS stringer in Illustration 10 shows this multi-panel, offset construction. ¶14, Illustration 10 col. 17:1-26
wherein the first top wall mount panel and the first bottom wall mount panel have a plurality of first slots that are respectively elongated along a length of each of the first top and bottom wall mount panels... configured to receive first wall mount fasteners therethrough to couple the first wall mount bracket to the wall surface The top and bottom flanges of the accused ETHOS stringers feature multiple elongated, horizontal slots. These slots are allegedly used to receive fasteners for mounting the stringer to a wall. This feature is visible in the product image provided in Illustration 10. ¶15, Illustration 10 col. 17:15-21
a second wall mount bracket... spaced from the first wall mount bracket... [and having similar features]... The accused ETHOS rack includes a second, lower wall mount bracket that is spaced vertically from the upper bracket and appears to have a construction substantially identical to the upper bracket. This two-bracket configuration is shown in product images. (Compl. Illustration 7). ¶14, Illustration 7 col. 17:27-41
and a weightlifting rack assembly connected to the first wall mount bracket and the second wall mount bracket, the weightlifting rack assembly comprising a first bracket connected to the first central panel... a second bracket connected to the first central panel... a third bracket... and a fourth bracket... The accused ETHOS product includes a rack assembly (vertical uprights, pivoting arms, etc.) that connects to the upper and lower wall mount brackets via pivot brackets. The complaint's images depict four such connections, corresponding to the four pivoting arms of the rack assembly connecting to the two stringers. (Compl. Illustration 7). ¶14, Illustration 7 col. 17:42-54
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions (Design): For the design patents, a central dispute will be the scope of the claimed design in light of prior art. The question for the court will be whether the specific visual elements of the ETHOS rack are close enough to the patented designs to confuse an ordinary observer, or if the differences are sufficient to distinguish them.
    • Technical Questions ('661 Patent): The infringement analysis for the '661 patent may turn on whether the accused ETHOS stringer's structure meets the specific claim limitations. For example, does the offset structure of the ETHOS stringer create the claimed "first space between the inner surface of the first central panel and the wall surface, to provide clearance for the first and second fasteners" as required by the full language of Claim 1? The complaint's top-down photos do not provide a cross-sectional view to definitively answer this, raising an evidentiary question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "wall mount bracket"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary component of the '661 patent's invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused ETHOS "stringer" falls within the scope of the claims. The complaint itself uses the terms "fold back rack and stringer products" when referring to both its own patented products and the accused products, foreshadowing a dispute over whether a "stringer" is a "wall mount bracket." (Compl. ¶15).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background section refers to the general problem of "structures for coupling weightlifting racks to a wall surface," which may support a broader functional definition not limited to a single embodiment. (’661 Patent, col. 1:16-18).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily details a specific embodiment with a central panel, top/bottom panels, and angled offset panels, as depicted in Figures 5-7. A defendant may argue that the term "wall mount bracket" is implicitly defined by this specific structure, to which all detailed descriptions refer. (’661 Patent, FIG. 5-7; col. 5:36-49).

  • The Term: "offset panels being respectively angled to each of the first central panel and the first top and bottom wall mount panels"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the specific geometry that creates the functional clearance space, a core aspect of the invention. The dispute will likely focus on whether the particular shape and angles of the accused ETHOS stringer meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any non-perpendicular, non-parallel connecting surface between the central and outer panels constitutes an "angled" panel, as it achieves the objective of creating an offset.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 7 shows a distinct, oblique-angled panel creating a Z-shaped cross-section. A defendant may argue this specific geometry is what "angled" means in the context of the patent, and that other shapes (e.g., a simple 90-degree bend creating a C-channel) would not be "angled to each" of the central and wall-mount panels in the claimed manner. (’661 Patent, FIG. 7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is "deliberate, intentional, and willful" for all four patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 29, 37, 45). The factual basis for this allegation is the assertion that "Dick's clearly looked to Rogue's fold back rack and stringer products when choosing the design" and that the resemblance is "readily apparent." (Compl. ¶15). To support the allegation of knowledge, the complaint provides screenshots of online consumer reviews from YouTube and the Defendant's own website, in which consumers explicitly state the accused product is a "blatant ripoff" and "looks exactly identical" to Rogue's product, suggesting Defendant was on notice of the alleged copying. (Compl. ¶16; Illustrations 8, 9).

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

  • A central issue for the three design patents will be a battle of visual perception: would an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing the ETHOS rack based on its overall appearance, or are the visual differences between the accused product and the patented designs sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement?
  • A key question for the '661 utility patent will be one of claim construction and structural mapping: can the term "wall mount bracket," as defined by the patent's specific multi-panel, offset geometry, be construed to read on the accused ETHOS product's "stringer," and does that stringer possess all the structural elements, such as the fastener clearance space, required by the asserted claims?
  • A critical factual question for willfulness will be one of knowing appropriation: can Plaintiff produce evidence to show that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit or, in the alternative, that its alleged copying of the product designs was so flagrant as to constitute objective recklessness with regard to Plaintiff's patent rights, especially in light of the public consumer commentary cited in the complaint?