DCT
2:24-cv-00564
JFXD TRX ACQ LLC v. Qing Dao LAN Jing Ling Jiajuyouxiangsi
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: JFXD TRX ACQ LLC, dba TRX (Florida)
- Defendant: QING DAO LAN JING LING JIAJUYOUXIANGSI, dba Lecardio (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lane Powell PC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00564, W.D. Wash., 04/23/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant sells the accused products in the judicial district through online platforms, including Amazon.com, and has consented to jurisdiction in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s resistance band handles infringe three of its U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of exercise equipment, specifically handles that provide a grip for using flat resistance bands, a product category with a large consumer market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that prior to litigation, Plaintiff attempted to use the Amazon Brand Enforcement tool to request a takedown of the accused product listings. It also mentions that Plaintiff sought international design protection through the Hague system in parallel with its U.S. applications.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-05-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent Nos. D979,676 and D985,697 |
| 2020-11-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928 |
| 2022-12-14 | Accused Black Product first available on Amazon.com |
| 2023-02-28 | U.S. Design Patent No. D979,676 issues |
| 2023-03-14 | U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928 issues |
| 2023-04-11 | Orange Accused Product first available on Amazon.com |
| 2023-05-09 | U.S. Design Patent No. D985,697 issues |
| 2023-10-31 | Big Black Accused Product first available on Amazon.com |
| 2024-02-29 | Pair of Accused Products first available on Amazon.com |
| 2024-04-23 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D979,676 - Removable Covered Simple Exercise Band Handle, issued February 28, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not specify a technical problem in the manner of a utility patent. The context suggests a need for a purpose-built handle to facilitate the use of strap-based exercise bands (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an exercise band handle. The claimed design consists of a generally cylindrical grip body, flared circular flanges at both ends, a longitudinal slot for inserting a resistance band, and a cross-hatched surface pattern on the grip area (’676 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 9). The overall visual impression is that of a robust, textured, spool-shaped handle.
- Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the commercial embodiment of the patented design, the TRX "BANDIT®," as a "practical gym tool" that provides a new way to use exercise bands, particularly for users accustomed to the feel of traditional suspension training handles (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17, 24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim for "The ornamental design for a removable covered simple exercise band handle, as shown and described" is asserted ('676 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶¶ 39, 47).
- The essential ornamental features of the claimed design include:
- A generally cylindrical handle body with flared, circular flanges at each end.
- A longitudinal opening along the length of the handle with a specific C-shaped cross-section.
- A repeating cross-hatch or diamond-patterned surface ornamentation on the grip portion.
U.S. Design Patent No. D980,928 - Exercise Band Handle, issued March 14, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '676 Patent, the design provides a handle for use with resistance bands (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims an ornamental design for an exercise band handle that is visually very similar to the design of the '676 Patent. It features the same overall spool-like shape with a cylindrical grip, flared end flanges, and a longitudinal slot (’928 Patent, Fig. 1, 5). The primary visual distinction is the surface of the grip, which is shown as a solid, un-textured surface, in contrast to the cross-hatched pattern of the '676 Patent ('928 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: This design provides an alternative aesthetic to the '676 Patent's design while retaining the same core form factor for holding resistance bands (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim for "The ornamental design for an exercise band handle, as shown and described" is asserted ('928 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶¶ 39, 47).
- The essential ornamental features of the claimed design include:
- A generally cylindrical handle body with flared, circular flanges at each end.
- A longitudinal opening along the length of the handle with a specific C-shaped cross-section.
- A smooth or uniform, non-patterned surface appearance on the grip portion.
U.S. Design Patent No. D985,697 - Exercise Band Handle, issued May 9, 2023
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D985,697, "Exercise Band Handle," issued May 9, 2023 (’697 Patent) (Compl. ¶8).
- Technology Synopsis: The '697 Patent protects the ornamental design for an exercise band handle. The design comprises a cylindrical grip with flared ends and a longitudinal slot, sharing the same core visual identity as the '676 and '928 patents, and is alleged to cover the design of the Plaintiff's "Bandit®" product (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings is asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 47).
- Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the "LECARDIO Resistance Band Handles" is alleged to infringe the claimed design (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "LECARDIO Resistance Band Handles," sold online in several variations, including the "Accused Black Product," "Big Black Accused Product," and "Orange Accused Product" (Compl. ¶¶ 1-3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are handles designed to receive flat resistance bands through a longitudinal slot, providing a secure grip for exercise (Compl. Ex. A-1, p. 16). The complaint alleges that these products directly compete with Plaintiff's "Bandit®" handles and were launched to "prey off the goodwill TRX has generated" (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 32). The products are sold on multiple online platforms, including Amazon.com, directly to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 15). The complaint includes a side-by-side photographic comparison of the patented designs and the accused Lecardio products (Compl. p. 7, "Two Design Patents" and "The Lecardio Products").
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially identical" to the patented designs and would deceive an ordinary observer into believing they were purchasing the patented product (Compl. ¶27). The complaint supports this with both narrative descriptions and visual evidence. The image provided in the complaint shows a comparison of Plaintiff's patented designs with Defendant's products (Compl. p. 7).
D979,676 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a cylindrical handle with flared, circular flanges at each end. | The accused Lecardio handle has a cylindrical shape with flared flanges at each end, creating a visually similar spool-like form. | ¶27; p. 7 | Fig. 1 |
| The ornamental design of a longitudinal slot for receiving a band. | The accused handle incorporates a longitudinal slot that runs the length of the grip. | ¶26; p. 7 | Figs. 1, 6 |
| The ornamental design of a cross-hatch or diamond-patterned surface texture on the grip. | The accused handle features a surface texture on the grip that appears as a cross-hatch or diamond pattern. | ¶27; p. 7 | Figs. 1, 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint lists numerous dimensional and arguably functional features, such as a "ratio of width over diameter is approximately 3 to 1" and a fixed opening distance of "around 6 mm" (Compl. ¶37). A central question for the court will be to filter out these functional aspects and determine the scope of the purely ornamental, non-functional design protected by the patent.
- Visual Questions: The core of the infringement analysis will be the "ordinary observer" test. Does the overall visual impression of the Lecardio handle, including its proportions, flange shape, and the specific density and appearance of its grip texture, create a likelihood of confusion with the design "as shown" in the '676 Patent?
D980,928 Infringement Allegations
The infringement theory against the '928 Patent is substantially the same as for the '676 Patent, focusing on the overall shape and configuration of the handle.
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a cylindrical handle with flared, circular flanges at each end. | The accused Lecardio handle has a cylindrical shape with flared flanges at each end, creating a visually similar spool-like form. | ¶27; p. 7 | Fig. 1 |
| The ornamental design of a longitudinal slot for receiving a band. | The accused handle incorporates a longitudinal slot that runs the length of the grip. | ¶26; p. 7 | Figs. 1, 4 |
| The ornamental design of a smooth, uniform surface on the grip. | The accused products feature a textured grip. This raises the question of whether the accused design is closer to the '676 patent's textured embodiment than the '928 patent's untextured one. | ¶27; p. 7 | Figs. 1, 4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Questions: A key point of contention for this patent will be the difference in surface ornamentation. The '928 Patent claims a handle with a smooth, un-textured grip, while the accused products are shown with a textured grip (Compl. p. 7). This visual difference may support an argument that an ordinary observer would not be confused between the accused product and the specific design claimed in the '928 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on describing the overall ornamental visual appearance depicted in the patent drawings, rather than defining textual terms. The claim is understood through the figures. However, the interpretation of certain visual features can be critical.
- The Term: The ornamental "surface ornamentation" of the handle's grip area.
- Context and Importance: This feature is a primary visual differentiator between the asserted patents ('676 Patent shows a cross-hatch pattern; '928 Patent shows a smooth surface). The accused products have a textured surface (Compl. p. 7). The perceived similarity of the accused texture to the patented texture will be a key factor in the ordinary observer analysis, particularly for the '676 Patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the "as shown" drawings of the '676 Patent depict one example of a "textured grip" and that the core ornamental concept is the overall shape combined with some form of grip-enhancing texture. They may argue that minor variations in the pattern would not be noticed by an ordinary purchaser.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim of the '676 Patent is strictly limited to the specific cross-hatch pattern "as shown" in the drawings. Any other pattern, even if textured, would be a noticeable difference to an ordinary observer, thus avoiding infringement. Similarly, the '928 Patent is limited to the smooth surface "as shown."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement, based on the defendant making, using, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶39). It does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendant's actions allegedly induced infringement by third parties beyond putting the products into the stream of commerce.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported knowledge of TRX as a "market leader" and having "actual and/or constructive notice" of the patents (Compl. ¶42). The complaint further characterizes Defendant as a "chronic infringer" that created the products to "prey off the goodwill TRX has generated" (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Ornamentality vs. Functionality: A foundational issue will be for the court to delineate the scope of the claimed designs by separating the protectable ornamental features from any unprotectable functional aspects of the handles. The complaint's reliance on specific dimensions and mechanical ratios may complicate this analysis.
- The Ordinary Observer Test: The ultimate outcome will likely depend on a highly factual, visual comparison. Is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Lecardio handles "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the patents? This will involve assessing the similarity of the overall form, proportions, end-flange design, and, critically, the surface texture of the grips from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser in the fitness product market.
- Differentiation Between Patents: A further question is whether the accused design, if found to be infringing, infringes all asserted patents. Given the visual difference in grip texture between the '676 Patent (textured) and the '928 Patent (smooth), the court may have to determine if the accused product's textured grip is confusingly similar to the former but clearly distinct from the latter.