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 (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kimura London & White LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-01860, C.D. Cal., 08/10/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant operates an Amazon storefront that specifically targets and ships products to residents within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wearable exercise weights sold under the "FOREVAFIT" brand infringe its design patent for a "Weighted Exercise Band."
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of wearable weights, a product category within the popular and growing consumer fitness market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of the asserted patent prior to the lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiff claims it reported Defendant's infringement to Amazon on May 12, 2021, and its counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on March 4, 2022. The original action was filed on March 21, 2022, with this First Amended Complaint filed on August 10, 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Plaintiff's "Bala" weighted exercise band launched |
| 2018-03-22 | ’167 Patent application filed (priority date) |
| 2020-06-23 | ’167 Patent issued |
| 2021-05-12 | Plaintiff reported Defendant's infringement to Amazon |
| 2022-03-04 | Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-03-21 | Original complaint filed |
| 2022-08-10 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 - "Weighted Exercise Band"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that in the market for fitness accessories, there is value in a distinctive and recognizable ornamental design that can serve as a source identifier for consumers (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a weighted exercise band. The claimed design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a series of individual, elongated, rectangular bars with rounded ends, arranged in a linear fashion to form a flexible band (D888,167 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 8). Notably, the patent's description clarifies that elements depicted in broken lines, such as the fastening strap, are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design (D888,167 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this particular design is "innovative" and has become "uniquely signifying to consumers that the products come from Bala" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- As is standard for a design patent, there is a single claim: "The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described." (D888,167 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-9 of the patent, which primarily include:
- A plurality of solid, elongated weights.
- Each weight having a generally rectangular shape with rounded or curved ends.
- The arrangement of these weights in a linear, articulated series.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Weighted exercise bands sold by Defendant EA Commerce LLC via an Amazon storefront under the brand name "FOREVAFIT" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are wearable weights, presumably for the wrists or ankles, used to add resistance during exercise. The complaint alleges these are "counterfeit products" sold through an Amazon storefront that "intentionally deceives and misleads consumers by creating a storefront that sells products using Bala's Design" (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 24). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and an image of the accused product to illustrate the alleged similarity (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products are "nearly identical" and that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 30). The complaint presents a visual comparison showing a figure from the '167 Patent next to an image of the accused product (Compl. p. 6).
Because this is a design patent, a traditional claim chart is not applicable. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the overall ornamental designs.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The dispute will center on whether the overall visual appearance of the accused FOREVAFIT product is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’167 Patent.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court or jury will be how to properly compare the designs. Specifically, the analysis must disregard the functional or unclaimed elements, such as the strap and clasp mechanism shown on the accused product, and focus only on the claimed ornamental features—the series of weighted bars—as depicted in solid lines in the patent drawings. The complaint's inclusion of images of the defendant's product, which includes a strap, raises the question of whether an ordinary observer would properly separate the claimed design from the unclaimed functional elements in the accused product.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific text is uncommon. Instead, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The court's role is typically to describe the claimed ornamental features in words to guide the infringement analysis.
- The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "weighted exercise band."
- Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is the central issue. The outcome of the case will depend on how broadly or narrowly the visual features shown in the patent's figures are interpreted. Practitioners may focus on this issue because any differences in proportion, number of segments, or surface texture between the patent figures and the accused products could be argued as placing the accused design outside the scope of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the claim covers the general concept of a wearable weight made of a series of distinct, articulated, elongated bars with rounded ends, as shown from multiple perspectives (e.g., flat in FIG. 4, curled in FIG. 8). This could suggest the design is not limited to the exact number of bars or precise proportions shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the claim is limited to the precise visual details shown, including the specific number of weighted segments (eight are depicted in the primary embodiment), their aspect ratio, and the curvature of their ends. The express disclaimer of the strap via broken lines reinforces that the claim is strictly limited to the ornamental appearance of the weights themselves, and nothing more (D888,167 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on direct infringement through acts of making, using, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶ 29).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶ 32). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement based on two events: a report Plaintiff made to Amazon on May 12, 2021, and a formal cease-and-desist letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on March 4, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused FOREVAFIT product substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’167 Patent, such that a potential customer would be deceived into purchasing one believing it was the other?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proper filtering: Can the fact-finder properly disregard the functional and unclaimed strap element of the accused product and focus the infringement comparison solely on the claimed ornamental features of the weighted bars, as defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings?
- Finally, a central question for willfulness and potential enhanced damages will be factual: What actions, if any, did Defendant take after receiving notice of the alleged infringement, first through Amazon in May 2021 and later via a formal cease-and-desist letter in March 2022?