DCT
1:22-cv-00132
PowerBlock Holdings v. iFIT
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. (Minnesota)
- Defendant: iFIT, Inc. (Delaware, with principal place of business in Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kirton McConkie; Merchant Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00132, D. Utah, 10/05/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because Defendant iFIT has its principal place of business in the district, commits acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s NordicTrack iSelect Adjustable Dumbbells infringe a patent related to using an electric motor and a data entry device to automate weight selection.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of selectorized dumbbells, a segment of the fitness equipment market focused on providing a wide range of weights in a single, compact device for home and commercial use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant iFIT had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit. This allegation is based on two cease-and-desist letters sent in 2022 and, notably, a 2017 USPTO Office Action that allegedly rejected one of iFIT’s own patent applications as being obvious over the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-12-08 | U.S. Patent 7,578,771 Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/873,681) |
| 2009-08-25 | U.S. Patent 7,578,771 Issue Date |
| 2017-06-05 | Alleged date iFIT received USPTO Office Action citing the '771 Patent |
| 2022-02-18 | Plaintiff sent first cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-05-12 | Plaintiff sent second cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-10-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 - “WEIGHT SELECTION AND ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM FOR SELECTORIZED DUMBBELLS INCLUDING MOTORIZED SELECTOR POSITIONING,” issued August 25, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inconvenience and potential for user error in manually adjusting selectorized dumbbells, where a user must physically manipulate a mechanical selector (like a pin or dial) to change the weight. The patent notes that this process can be cumbersome, especially when adjusting a pair of dumbbells, and a failure to correctly engage the selector could pose a safety risk. (’971 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention automates the weight selection process. It describes a system where an electric motor is operatively connected to the dumbbell's selector mechanism. A user inputs a desired weight using a "data entry device," and a controller then energizes the motor to physically move the selector to the correct position, thereby coupling the desired number of weight plates to the handle. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-34). The patent discloses embodiments where the motor is located in a stand to adjust a pair of dumbbells simultaneously, as well as an embodiment where the motor and controller are integrated directly into the dumbbell handle. (’971 Patent, col. 9:25-45, FIG. 16).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to simplify the user experience and enhance the safety of selectorized dumbbells by replacing a manual, mechanical adjustment process with an automated, electronic one. (’971 Patent, col. 2:6-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 20. (Compl. ¶18, 32).
- Essential elements of Claim 20 include:
- a dumbbell that provides an exercise weight... adjustable by coupling more or fewer weight plates to each end of the handle;
- an electric motor that may be selectively energized and when energized will cause a desired number of weight plates to be coupled to each end of the handle; and
- a data entry device to allow the user to input a weight selection decision that operatively controls the energization of the motor to adjust the exercise weight of the dumbbell.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the NordicTrack iSelect Adjustable Dumbbell. (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the NordicTrack iSelect is a selectorized dumbbell system where the user can select a desired weight, and an electric motor then adjusts the dumbbell to couple the corresponding weight plates to the handle. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges these products are sold under the NordicTrack brand and compete directly with Plaintiff's products in the adjustable dumbbell market. (Compl. ¶20, 46). A visual provided in the complaint shows the NordicTrack iSelect dumbbells resting in a base unit that appears to contain the adjustment mechanism. (Compl. p.6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused product meets every limitation of at least independent Claim 20. (Compl. ¶32). The infringement theory is detailed narratively and with supporting images, referencing a claim chart exhibit that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint.
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a dumbbell that provides an exercise weight that is lifted by a user when the user grips and lifts a handle of the dumbbell, wherein the exercise weight provided by the dumbbell is adjustable by coupling more or fewer weight plates to each end of the handle | The NordicTrack iSelect Adjustable Dumbbells are alleged to be dumbbells comprising a handle and adjustable weight plates. The image provided shows a dumbbell with a handle and multiple weight plates nested together. (Compl. p.6, "The Infringing NordicTrack iSelect Adjustable Dumbbell"). | ¶24a | col. 1:21-28 |
| an electric motor that may be selectively energized and when energized will cause a desired number of weight plates to be coupled to each end of the handle | The accused product is alleged to contain an electric motor that causes the weight plates to be coupled to the handle. The complaint includes a photograph, labeled "Electric Motor," depicting the internal motor assembly of the accused product. (Compl. p.7). | ¶24b | col. 2:28-34 |
| a data entry device to allow the user to input a weight selection decision that operatively controls the energization of the motor to adjust the exercise weight of the dumbbell in accordance with the weight selection decision input into the data entry device by the user | The accused product is alleged to contain a data entry device allowing users to input a weight selection, which in turn controls the motor. The URL cited in the complaint refers to the product as "voice-controlled," suggesting voice commands may serve as the data entry method. | ¶24 | col. 2:60-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The definition of "data entry device" may become a central issue. A court may need to determine if this term, described in the patent in the context of devices with keys and a screen, can be construed to read on the voice-control system allegedly used by the accused product.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the complaint can substantiate its allegation of operative control. What proof demonstrates that the user's input via the "data entry device" directly results in the "electric motor" causing the coupling of a "desired number of weight plates" as required by the claim's logic? The complaint's allegations are conclusory on this point, and proof will likely require technical evidence of the product's internal operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "data entry device"
Context and Importance
The construction of this term is critical because the user interface is a core component of the claimed invention. The outcome may depend on whether the term is limited to the physical, button-based devices shown in the patent's figures or is broad enough to cover other input methods like voice commands or smartphone app integration.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that such devices are found on "a host of products such as personal computers, cell phones, television remote controls, etc." (’971 Patent, col. 2:4-6). This language may support an argument that the term was intended to be technologically broad and not limited to a specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s preferred embodiments consistently depict a device "similar to a PDA or cell phone" having a "visual display 66 and a plurality of data entry keys or buttons 68." (’971 Patent, col. 6:61-68; FIG. 1, 12, 16). A defendant might argue these specific disclosures limit the term's scope to devices with physical keys and a screen.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes a detailed claim for willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’971 Patent from at least two sources: (1) two cease-and-desist letters sent by Plaintiff in February and May 2022 (Compl. ¶26, 33); and (2) a USPTO Office Action allegedly received by iFIT on June 5, 2017, which cited the ’971 Patent against one of iFIT’s own patent applications for the accused dumbbells. (Compl. ¶26, 43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "data entry device," which is exemplified in the patent by a physical keypad and screen, be construed to cover the voice-command functionality and other modern user interfaces allegedly employed by the accused NordicTrack iSelect product?
- A second issue will be one of evidentiary proof: beyond the conclusory allegations, what technical evidence will be presented to show that the accused product’s internal mechanism and software perform the specific functions recited in Claim 20—namely, that the "electric motor" is "operatively control[led]" by the "data entry device" to couple a "desired number" of weight plates to the handle?
- Finally, a central question will be the defendant's state of mind for willfulness. The allegation that iFIT was on notice of the ’971 patent since 2017, due to a rejection of its own patent application by the USPTO, presents a significant factual question that will heavily influence the willfulness and potential damages analysis if infringement is found.