DCT
3:25-cv-01833
Togy Trading Co Ltd v. Domesick
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Togy Trading Co., Limited dba Zoomsnail (Hong Kong SAR)
- Defendant: Michael Domesick (Connecticut); AbMill, LLC (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01833, N.D. Tex., 07/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' substantial business in the district, including soliciting business and deriving revenue from Texas residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its plank exercise products do not infringe Defendants' patent, following an infringement complaint filed by Defendants with Amazon.com that resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff's products.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns ergonomic exercise equipment designed to improve the comfort, safety, and effectiveness of plank exercises by redistributing user bodyweight.
- Key Procedural History: This action was precipitated by an "Intellectual Property Violation" complaint filed by Defendants on the Amazon Marketplace in early 2025, which accused Plaintiff's products of infringement and resulted in their delisting. Plaintiff characterizes this pre-suit complaint as "meritless and bad faith."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 Priority Date |
| 2022-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 Issue Date |
| Early 2025 | Defendants lodge Amazon infringement complaint |
| 2025-07-11 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364, "PLANK SUPPORT EXERCISE APPARATUS AND RELATED METHODS," issued November 8, 2022.
U.S. Patent No. 11,491,364 - "PLANK SUPPORT EXERCISE APPARATUS AND RELATED METHODS"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes drawbacks of conventional plank exercises, including discomfort from localized force on the elbows and the risk of injury from devices with unrestricted sliding movement or non-ergonomic handle grips that cause wrist strain (’364 Patent, col. 1:15-col. 2:40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus with hand grips and forearm support pads connected by a frame member. This design aims to distribute the user's bodyweight more broadly across the forearms and hands, rather than concentrating it on the elbows, thereby increasing comfort and stability (’364 Patent, col. 5:55-col. 6:15). Certain embodiments also include features for adjustability and controlled destabilization to enhance the exercise (’364 Patent, col. 7:6-21).
- Technical Importance: The apparatus purports to offer a safer and more ergonomic method for performing plank exercises, potentially reducing strain and injury while allowing for a more effective workout.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses its non-infringement arguments on exemplary independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising:
- an arm support pad;
- a hand grip;
- a frame member extending between the front and back of the apparatus, where "at least one portion of the frame member has a tubular shape" to which the arm support pad is attached;
- the hand grip is at a first end and the arm support pad is at a second end, with the pad positioned distally from the grip for contact with a user's arm; and
- a "contact surface" that allows the apparatus to rest in "level contact with the ground surface."
- The complaint also contests elements of dependent claims, such as the "destabilization device" recited in claim 2, suggesting the right to contest dependent claims is reserved.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as exercise apparatus sold by Plaintiff on Amazon under ASINs B0DQXTG919 and B0DQXZ651K (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products differ structurally from the patented invention. It asserts the products have a "rectangular pad" rather than a "frame member with a tubular shape" (Compl. ¶32).
- It is further alleged that the products lack distinct "arm support pads" and instead have a "rectangular pad with two arm grips" (Compl. ¶33).
- The complaint states the Accused Products "lay flat on the ground" and do not possess a "destabilization device" (Compl. ¶34).
- Plaintiff alleges that the Amazon marketplace is its "primary sales channel" and that the delisting of its products due to Defendants' infringement complaint causes significant commercial harm (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
Visual Evidence
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes Plaintiff's arguments for why its products do not meet the limitations of Claim 1.
'364 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame member ... wherein at least one portion of the frame member has a tubular shape | The Accused Products allegedly do not have a frame member with a tubular shape, but instead have a "rectangular pad." | ¶31-32 | col. 5:12-14 |
| an arm support pad ... positioned distally from the hand grip in contact with the arm of the user | The Accused Products allegedly lack claimed arm support pads, instead featuring a "rectangular pad with two arm grips" without separate attachments for arm support. | ¶31, ¶33 | col. 5:20-22 |
| [Implicit in Claim 2] a destabilization device configured to facilitate a destabilization of the apparatus | The Accused Products allegedly "lay flat on the ground" and do not have any component that provides a destabilization effect. | ¶31, ¶34 | col. 7:6-9 |
| a contact surface ... in level contact with the ground surface | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 22:47-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be whether the term "frame member ... has a tubular shape" can be construed to read on the Accused Products' alleged "rectangular pad." Similarly, the court may need to determine if the single "rectangular pad with two arm grips" of the accused device constitutes the separately claimed "arm support pad" and "hand grip".
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the Accused Products, which allegedly "lay flat on the ground," include any structure that performs the function of the "destabilization device" recited in dependent claim 2.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "frame member ... has a tubular shape"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical, as Plaintiff’s primary non-infringement argument is that its product has a "rectangular pad" and not a tubular frame. The case may turn on whether "tubular shape" is a strict limitation or can encompass other forms.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests other forms are contemplated, stating that frame legs can have "a non-cylindrical shape such as a square shape" (’364 Patent, col. 10:1-2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 expressly recites a "tubular shape." The primary embodiments depicted in the patent figures (e.g., Figs. 3, 6, 9) consistently show a frame constructed from tube-like members.
The Term: "arm support pad"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges its products lack this element. Practitioners may focus on whether the "rectangular pad" of the accused device can be considered an "arm support pad" or if the claim requires a structurally distinct component.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the function of the pad as providing a "user-contact surface" for the forearm (’364 Patent, col. 11:58-60). Any surface that performs this function could arguably meet the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict the "arm support pad" (e.g., 140, 142, 144) as a separate, often cushioned and curvilinear, component attached to the frame member and distinct from the "hand grip" (120) (’364 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 5:45-50).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement; no allegations of indirect infringement are made.
- Willful Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement; no allegations of willful infringement are made. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' pre-suit infringement complaint to Amazon was "meritless and bad faith" (Compl. ¶5, ¶24) and seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle Plaintiff to attorney fees (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "frame member" with a "tubular shape" be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product's alleged "rectangular pad" structure, especially in light of specification language allowing for non-cylindrical shapes?
- A second key question will concern claim differentiation and structure: does the accused product's single "rectangular pad with two arm grips" meet the claim requirements for both a distinct "arm support pad" and a "hand grip", or does the patent require two structurally separate components?
- Finally, a central procedural and financial issue will be whether Defendants' pre-suit enforcement action on Amazon was objectively baseless. The court's determination on this point will decide if the case is "exceptional" and whether Plaintiff can recover attorney fees.