DCT
2:22-cv-00655
Bala Bangles Inc v. Ea Commerce LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bala Bangles Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ea Commerce LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kimura London & White LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00655, C.D. Cal., 03/21/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant operates an Amazon storefront that specifically targets and ships allegedly infringing products to residents within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s weighted exercise bands infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff’s "Bala Bangles" product.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the wearable fitness accessory market, specifically concerning the ornamental design of weighted bands worn on the user's wrists or ankles during exercise.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first reported Defendant's infringement to Amazon on May 12, 2021, and later sent a formal cease-and-desist letter on March 4, 2022, to which Defendant did not respond. These events are asserted as the basis for willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-01-01 | Plaintiff's "Bala" product line launched |
| 2018-03-22 | '167 Patent Priority Date (Application Filed) |
| 2020-06-23 | '167 Patent Issued |
| 2021-05-12 | Plaintiff reported infringement to Amazon |
| 2022-03-04 | Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-03-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 - “Weighted Exercise Band”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 ("the ’167 Patent"), "Weighted Exercise Band," issued June 23, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’167 Patent does not contain a background section describing a technical problem. Its purpose is to protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a weighted exercise band. The claimed design consists of a series of discrete, elongated, rectangular-shaped weighted bars with smoothly rounded ends, which are arranged parallel to one another on a flexible strap ('167 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4). The design also includes the appearance of the band when wrapped into a circular shape for wearing ('167 Patent, FIG. 8).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design is "innovative" and has become "uniquely signifying to consumers that the products come from Bala" (Compl. ¶¶18, 21). This suggests the design's value lies in its distinctiveness and brand-identifying function in the marketplace.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described." ('167 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's nine figures, which depict the article from various perspectives. Key ornamental features include:
- The shape and proportions of the individual weighted segments.
- The parallel, side-by-side arrangement of the segments.
- The overall appearance of the band in both a flat and a fastened, cylindrical configuration.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are weighted exercise bands sold by Defendant through an Amazon storefront identified as "FOREVAFIT" (Compl. ¶23). Images in the complaint show products branded as "FOREVA FIT" and "HONEYCOMB FITNESS" (Compl. pp. 6-7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are wearable weights for the user's wrists or ankles (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges these products are "nearly identical versions of the protected Bala design" and that Defendant "intentionally deceives and misleads consumers" by selling products that use Bala's design without permission (Compl. ¶¶24, 29). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of a patent figure and a photograph of the accused product offered by Defendant. This image shows the accused product in packaging with the brand name "FOREVA FIT" (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design to be substantially the same as the patented design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint alleges that this standard is met (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes several images to support its infringement theory, including a direct comparison of the patent drawings with the accused product. One such visual shows a product photo from Defendant's alleged Amazon listing next to Figure 1 of the patent (Compl. p. 6).
’167 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Accused Product Images) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ornamental design for a weighted exercise band. | Defendant sells weighted exercise bands alleged to embody the patented design. | ¶29 | '167 Patent, Title |
| A series of discrete, elongated, rectangular blocks with rounded ends. | The accused products feature a series of discrete, elongated blocks with what appear to be rounded ends. | ¶30 (p. 6 image) | '167 Patent, FIG. 1, 9 |
| The blocks are arranged parallel and adjacent to each other on a flexible band. | The accused products' weighted blocks are arranged in a parallel and adjacent manner on a flexible band. | ¶30 (p. 7 image) | '167 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| The overall visual impression of the band in a wrapped, circular configuration. | The complaint includes images of the accused products in stacked and wrapped configurations that Plaintiff alleges are confusingly similar to the patented design's appearance when worn. | ¶17 (p. 4 image) | '167 Patent, FIG. 8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Overall Similarity: The dispositive legal question will be whether the total ornamental appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design in the '167 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether any minor differences in proportion, surface finish, or the shape of the end caps on the weighted segments are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression, thereby distinguishing the accused products from the patented design in the mind of an ordinary observer. The complaint's images suggest a high degree of similarity, but the ultimate determination will depend on a comparison of the actual products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a focus, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings rather than words. The primary "term" for analysis is the article of manufacture identified in the claim.
- The Term: "weighted exercise band"
- Context and Importance: The scope of a design patent is limited to the claimed ornamental design as applied to the specific article of manufacture recited in the patent. Here, the infringement allegation appears to be a direct one-to-one mapping, as the accused product is also a weighted exercise band. The construction of this term is unlikely to be a point of significant dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent provides clear evidence for the meaning of this term.
- Evidence for Interpretation: The patent is titled "Weighted Exercise Band" ('167 Patent, Title). The single claim is for a design for a "weighted exercise band" ('167 Patent, Claim). The figures all depict an article consistent with this description ('167 Patent, FIGS. 1-9). The complaint does not present facts that would suggest a dispute over whether the accused product qualifies as a "weighted exercise band."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶32). This allegation is supported by two specific factual claims of pre-suit knowledge: (1) a notice of infringement sent to Defendant via Amazon on or about May 12, 2021 (Compl. ¶25); and (2) a cease-and-desist letter sent to Defendant by Plaintiff's counsel on March 4, 2022, to which Defendant allegedly failed to respond (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, comparing the accused "FOREVAFIT" and "HONEYCOMB FITNESS" products to the figures in the '167 Patent, find their overall ornamental designs to be substantially the same, thereby creating liability for infringement?
A key evidentiary question for damages will be one of knowledge and intent: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant had actual knowledge of the '167 Patent and its infringement via the 2021 Amazon notice or the 2022 cease-and-desist letter? A finding of such knowledge, followed by continued sales, would support the claim for willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages.
Should infringement be found, a central issue for the remedy will be the calculation of damages: Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent owner is entitled to the infringer's total profits. The case may therefore turn on discovery and evidence related to the total profit Defendant earned from the sale of the accused weighted exercise bands.