DCT
2:19-cv-00228
Avus Holdings v. Muir
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Avus Holdings, LLC D/B/A Lock-Jaw Collar (California)
- Defendant: Patrick C. Muir (individual); Next Distributions, LLC (foreign entity); and Next Distributions, Inc. (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: VESTED LAW, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00228, D. Utah, 04/03/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah based on Defendants' residence, conducting substantial business, committing acts of infringement, and directing product sales to residents within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of "Clout Fitness" barbell clamps infringes one utility patent and two design patents related to weight plate retention collars.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical collars used in weightlifting to quickly and securely fasten weight plates onto the sleeve of a barbell.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of infringement. This includes a cease-and-desist letter sent on November 7, 2017, which specifically identified U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856, and subsequent complaints to Amazon regarding the asserted design patents. These allegations form the basis for the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856 Priority Date |
| 2009-04-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856 Issued |
| 2015-11-03 | U.S. Design Patent No. D764,608 Priority Date |
| Circa 2016 | Defendant allegedly began selling the Accused Barbell Clamp |
| 2016-03-02 | U.S. Design Patent No. D780,860 Priority Date |
| 2016-08-23 | U.S. Design Patent No. D764,608 Issued |
| 2017-03-07 | U.S. Design Patent No. D780,860 Issued |
| 2017-11-07 | Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letter regarding the '856 Patent |
| 2019-04-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856 - "Weight Plate Retention Collar" (Issued Apr. 7, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art barbell collars as facing several problems: they could damage the barbell sleeve (e.g., screw-based clamps), were often heavy and bulky, lacked durability, or had a limited clamping range that could not accommodate variations in barbell sleeve sizes (’856 Patent, col. 1:43-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a retention collar comprising a hinged outer frame that opens to fit over a barbell sleeve. The interior of the frame contains multiple "pressure pins" that make contact with the barbell. A cam lever is connected via a "pull bar" to the frame; activating the lever pulls the bar, which tightens the frame and causes the pressure pins to create a secure frictional grip on the barbell sleeve, holding the weight plates in place (’856 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-41; Fig. 9).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a quick, secure, and non-damaging method for retaining weight plates, improving on prior art that relied on screws or more complex mechanisms (’856 Patent, col. 1:43-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-3 (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- An outer frame shaped to form an interior space for a barbell.
- A plurality of pressure pins that are substantially cylindrical in shape, attached to the interior of the outer frame.
- A pull bar connected to one of the pressure pins.
- A lever attached to the pull bar.
- Wherein activating the lever pulls the pull bar, causing the pressure pins to close the outer frame around the barbell.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims upon further discovery (Compl. ¶29).
U.S. Design Patent No. D780,860 - "Locking Barbell Collar" (Issued Mar. 7, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The ’D860 Patent protects the specific visual and ornamental design of a locking barbell collar. Key visual features include the overall angular, somewhat octagonal shape of the collar's body, the specific contours of the hinged sections, the shape and configuration of the locking lever, and the arrangement of circular elements on the exterior surface of the frame (’D860 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a locking barbell collar, as shown and described" (’D860 Patent, Claim). The complaint asserts this single claim (Compl. ¶37).
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D764,608, "Flexible Barbell Strap with an Over-Center Cam," Issued Aug. 23, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a barbell collar. The claimed design features a flexible main body with a distinct, rounded hexagonal shape and an over-center cam lever for locking, as depicted in the patent figures (’D608 Patent, Figs. 1-14).
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶46).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' "Clout Fitness" collars is substantially similar to the patented design, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶46).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are barbell clamps sold by Defendants under the "Clout Fitness" brand, including a product titled "Quick Release Pair of Locking 2" Olympic Size Barbell Clamp Collar Great for Pro Training by Clout Fitness" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides screenshots of these products for sale on Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶12, p. 4).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are collars designed to be placed on a standard 2-inch Olympic barbell sleeve to secure weight plates (Compl. ¶12). The images provided show a hinged collar body with a lever-actuated locking mechanism, and the complaint alleges they are sold in multiple colors (Compl. ¶15, p. 5). The complaint characterizes the accused product as a "knockoff" of the Plaintiff's "LOCK-JAW" branded product (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart for the utility patent. The following chart is constructed based on the claim language and the general allegations and visual evidence in the complaint.
’856 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an outer frame that is shaped to form an interior space sufficient to allow the placement of said barbell therein | The main hinged body of the accused "Clout Fitness" collar. The complaint includes images of the product showing a hinged, frame-like structure designed to encircle a barbell (Compl. ¶12). | ¶12, ¶29 | col. 4:42-45 |
| a plurality of pressure pins that are substantially cylindrical in shape...being attached to the interior of said...outer frame | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It does not contain images or descriptions of the interior contact surfaces of the accused product to determine if they constitute a "plurality of pressure pins" that are "substantially cylindrical." | ¶29 | col. 4:46-53 |
| a pull bar connected to one of said plurality of pressure pins | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, as the internal connection between the lever mechanism and the frame is not shown or described. | ¶29 | col. 4:54-55 |
| a lever attached to said pull bar | The locking lever on the accused "Clout Fitness" collar, which is used to clamp the device onto the barbell. The complaint includes a visual of the product which shows a lever mechanism (Compl. ¶12, p. 4). | ¶12, ¶29 | col. 4:56 |
| wherein when said lever is activated...said pressure pins close said outer frame around said barbell | The clamping action of the accused product, whereby moving the lever tightens the collar around the barbell sleeve to hold weights in place (Compl. ¶12). | ¶12, ¶29 | col. 4:57-59 |
'D860 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the design of the accused products is "substantially similar" to the design claimed in the 'D860 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶37). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison showing a figure from the 'D860 patent next to photographs of two accused products (Compl. ¶38, p. 8). This image directly juxtaposes the patented ornamental design with the appearance of the accused green and black collars.
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions ('856 Patent): A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused "Clout Fitness" collars contain internal structures that meet the "plurality of pressure pins that are substantially cylindrical" limitation of claim 1. Discovery will be needed to determine if the accused products use distinct, pin-like components or a different mechanism, such as a continuous friction pad.
- Scope Questions (Design Patents): For the 'D860 and 'D608 patents, the dispute will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused collars is substantially the same as the patented designs. Defendants may argue that differences in the specific shape of the lever, the contours of the body, or surface textures distinguish their products from the claimed designs. The complaint's side-by-side comparisons invite this direct analysis (Compl. ¶38, ¶46).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856
- The Term: "pressure pins" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is a core structural element of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis for the '856 patent may depend entirely on whether the internal contact surfaces of the accused product fall within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of these components as creating "friction between the device and the barbell sleeve" (’856 Patent, col. 2:9-10). A party could argue this functional description supports interpreting "pins" to cover other forms of friction-creating pads or surfaces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires the pins to be "substantially cylindrical in shape" (’856 Patent, col. 4:47). The patent's figures, particularly the exploded view in Figure 9, depict multiple, discrete, separate cylindrical components that are inserted into the frame, suggesting a specific structure rather than a continuous internal lining (’856 Patent, Fig. 9).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While no separate count for indirect infringement is pleaded for the '856 patent, the complaint alleges for the 'D860 patent that Defendants are "causing others to sell the patented design" (Compl. ¶39). This language suggests a potential theory of induced infringement, likely based on Defendants' sales to and through online retailers like Amazon.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been willful at all times (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims of both actual and constructive notice. Plaintiff alleges actual notice of the '856 patent via a cease-and-desist letter dated November 7, 2017 (Compl. ¶16), and notice of the design patents via complaints to Amazon (Compl. ¶17). Constructive notice is alleged based on Plaintiff's marking of its own products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the internal friction-creating components of the accused "Clout Fitness" collars meet the specific claim limitations of a "plurality of pressure pins" that are "substantially cylindrical in shape," as required by the '856 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their mechanical structure?
- For the design patents, the case will turn on the ordinary observer test: Are the accused collars so similar in their overall ornamental appearance to the designs protected by the 'D860 and 'D608 patents that an ordinary observer would be deceived, or are the visual differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
- A key factual question for damages will be the Defendants' state of mind: Did Defendants' continued sales of the accused products after allegedly receiving a cease-and-desist letter in November 2017 constitute objective recklessness sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages?