Century LLC v. Everlast Sports Mfg Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Century, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Defendant: Everlast Sports Mfg. Corp. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Head, Johnson, Kachigian & Wilkinson, PC
• Case Identification: 5:18-cv-01227, W.D. Okla., 12/17/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant physically conducting business within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s freestanding training bags infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a training bag and a utility patent directed to a compressive zipper mechanism for assembling the bag.
• Technical Context: The case concerns freestanding punching bags, a category of consumer fitness equipment where assembly methods and aesthetic design are relevant product features.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has provided statutory notice of its patents on its own products. No other significant procedural history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-09-04	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D706,886
2013-06-11	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,414,649
2014-06-10	U.S. Patent No. D706,886 Issued
2016-08-16	U.S. Patent No. 9,414,649 Issued
2018-12-17	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D706,886, "Multi Position Freestanding Training Bag," issued June 10, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; rather, they protect new, original, and ornamental designs for an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a freestanding training bag. The design is characterized by the overall proportions of the cylindrical bag and its base, and particularly by the distinct, faceted shape of the base structure (D'886 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The broken lines in the figures indicate that features such as the texture of the main bag column are not part of the claimed design (D'886 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic within the consumer market for fitness equipment.

Key Claims at a Glance

• A design patent contains a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a multi position freestanding training bag, as shown and described" (D'886 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Patent No. 9,414,649, "Progressive Compressive Zipper," issued August 16, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty of assembling freestanding training bags, which requires forcefully compressing a foam-filled top onto a heavy base to create a firm connection and a taut vinyl skin for consistent rebound properties ('649 Patent, col. 1:19-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a zipper mechanism designed to simplify this assembly. A "ramp portion" angles downward from the main zipper track on the compressible bag top. As the user zips the bag top to the base, this ramp acts as a lever, progressively compressing the foam core onto the base and creating a tight fit without requiring significant brute force ('649 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:19-24).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to enable a single person to easily and effectively attach the heavy and unwieldy components of a freestanding training bag ('649 Patent, col. 2:51-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" ('649 Patent, Compl. ¶11). The independent claims are:
• Independent Claim 1 (a device) includes:
  • A first component (a compressible training bag with a foam core)
  • A second component (a separate, weighted base)
  • A first zipper half on the first component comprising an "encircling portion" and a "ramp portion" that extends toward the base at an angle less than 90 degrees
  • A second zipper half on the second component comprising an "attached portion" and a "tail portion"
  • Wherein zipping the halves together connects the components and "at least partially compress[es] the foam core"
• Independent Claim 6 (a method) includes:
  • Placing the connecting surfaces of a first component (training bag) and a second component (base) adjacent
  • Compressing the first component by first zipping the "ramp portion" and "tail portion" together, and then zipping the "encircling portion" and "attached portion" together to complete the connection

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "Everlast training bags," and specifically the "Everlast Axis Freestanding Heavy Bag" (Compl. ¶11, 14).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products are freestanding training bags sold online through retailers such as Dick's Sporting Goods (Compl. ¶9). The complaint includes an advertisement, attached as Exhibit C, showing the accused "Everlast Axis Freestanding Heavy Bag" (Compl. ¶9, 14). The complaint provides no specific technical details about the assembly, construction, or zipper mechanism of the accused product, other than asserting that it infringes.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D'886 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Everlast Axis Freestanding Heavy Bag" is "substantially similar to an ordinary observer to the design set forth in the ‘886 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The analysis for design patent infringement is a visual comparison between the claimed design and the accused product.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, viewing the accused product, would be deceived into believing it is the patented design. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression, comparing the shape and configuration of the accused bag's base and its proportions to the ornamental features shown in the solid lines of the '886 Patent figures.

’649 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on an element-by-element basis. It makes a general allegation that the accused training bags infringe "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11) and are "described in the ‘649 patent" (Compl. ¶21), but does not map any feature of the accused product to any specific claim limitation.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary issue for the court will be factual and evidentiary: does the accused product’s zipper mechanism actually include a "ramp portion" that extends at an angle and functions to "at least partially compress the foam core," as required by claim 1?
  • Functional Questions: Regarding the method claim 6, a key question is whether the accused product is assembled using the claimed two-stage zipping process (ramp/tail first, then encircling/attached portions). The complaint provides no evidence or allegation regarding the actual method of assembly for the accused product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’649 Patent:

• The Term: "ramp portion"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of using a zipper for leverage and compression. Its construction will determine whether infringement requires a specific functional outcome or merely a particular geometric arrangement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute could turn on whether any angled zipper segment qualifies, or if the segment must be specifically designed and configured to achieve the patent's stated compressive function.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term structurally as "a ramp portion that extends from the encircling portion toward the connecting surface at less than a 90° angle" ('649 Patent, col. 5:1-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links this structure to a function: "The ramp construction of the zipper gradually compresses the top and base together as it is zipped" ('649 Patent, col. 4:19-21) and "the ramp 7 serves to effectively reduce friction while using the lateral zipping action to progressively compress foam material" ('649 Patent, col. 4:35-38). This may support an argument that the term implies a functional requirement of progressive compression.

• The Term: "at least partially compress the foam core"

• Context and Importance: This functional limitation in claim 1 requires a specific result from the zipping action. The ambiguity lies in the required degree of compression.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "at least partially" suggests that any measurable amount of compression, however minimal, could meet the claim limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section states the goal is to produce a "firm connection" where the "vinyl top skin is stretched firmly over the foam with no wrinkles" ('649 Patent, col. 1:28-30). This could support an argument that the compression must be substantial enough to achieve this stated functional objective, not merely incidental to the connection.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for both patents but does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as referencing user manuals that instruct on an infringing use or assembly method (Compl. ¶15, 21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was "deliberate, willful, intentional, and with full knowledge" of both patents (Compl. ¶17, 23). The complaint does not allege facts to support pre-suit knowledge, though the filing of the lawsuit itself establishes knowledge for any ongoing conduct.

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

• A core issue for the design patent claim will be one of visual identity: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Everlast bag, particularly its base, "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '886 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer?
• A key evidentiary question for the utility patent claim will be one of technical operation: does the accused bag's zipper mechanism incorporate the specific "ramp portion" structure as claimed, and more importantly, does it actually function to progressively compress the bag's foam core against the base as required by the '649 patent, or does it utilize a conventional zipper design? The complaint's lack of factual detail on this point makes it a central unknown of the case.