DCT
2:23-cv-00023
Avus Holdings LLC v. Dmoose Enterprises Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Avus Holdings, LLC and Avus Design, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: DMoose Enterprises Inc. (Wyoming)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C.; Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00023, D. Wyo., 01/31/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Wyoming because Defendant is a Wyoming entity that resides and has a regular and established place of business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s barbell clamps infringe a patent related to a weight plate retention collar.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical collars used in weightlifting to secure weight plates onto the sleeve of a barbell, a common piece of equipment in commercial and home gyms.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a notice of infringement letter to Defendant on June 24, 2022. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff's own commercial products are marked with the patent number, providing a potential basis for pre-letter notice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-00-00 | Plaintiff launches its first weight retention collar product |
| 2007-05-14 | '856 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-04-07 | '856 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-06-24 | Plaintiff's counsel sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-01-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856 - “Weight Plate Retention Collar”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,513,856 (“the ’856 Patent”), “Weight Plate Retention Collar,” issued April 7, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Prior art methods for securing weight plates to barbells, such as spring-loaded cams or screws, were described as potentially damaging the barbell sleeve, being heavy or bulky, lacking durability, and having a limited range of clamping force, making them incompatible with all barbell sizes (ʼ856 Patent, col. 1:43-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a collar that uses a hinged, two-part outer frame enclosing a plurality of pressure pins. A user operates a cam lever, which is connected to a pull bar. Activating the lever pulls the bar, which in turn causes the pressure pins to pivot and clamp down on the barbell sleeve, creating a secure frictional fit without damaging the bar (ʼ856 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-41). The structure is illustrated in the patent’s Figure 1, which shows the main components: the lever (11), pull bar (12), pressure pins (13), and outer frame (14) (Compl. ¶24).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a secure, lightweight, and ergonomic collar that can accommodate a wide range of barbell sleeves without causing damage (ʼ856 Patent, col. 3:51-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23, ¶28).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An outer frame shaped to form an interior space for a barbell.
- A plurality of substantially cylindrical pressure pins 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 activation of the lever pulls the pull bar, causing the pressure pins to close the outer frame around the barbell.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "DMoose" brand barbell clamps (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is sold online via an Amazon storefront and the Defendant's own website (Compl. ¶15). An image provided in the complaint shows a set of black, hinged barbell collars with a lever mechanism and the "DMOOSE" brand name visible (Compl. p. 4, Image).
- Plaintiff alleges the Accused Product was designed after Defendant saw Plaintiff's "Lock-Jaw Product" (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product contains the same core components and operates in the same manner as the patented invention: it includes an outer frame, pressure pins, a pull bar, and a lever that, when pulled, causes the pressure pins to close the frame and secure the collar to a barbell (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'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 Accused Product includes an outer frame of a retention collar, which forms an interior space for surrounding a barbell. | ¶28 | col. 2:28-32 |
| a plurality of pressure pins that are substantially cylindrical in shape... attached to the interior of said... outer frame | The Accused Product includes substantially cylindrical pressure pins attached to a frame. | ¶28 | col. 4:48-52 |
| a pull bar connected to one of said plurality of pressure pins | The Accused Product includes a pull bar. | ¶28 | col. 4:53-54 |
| a lever attached to said pull bar | The Accused Product includes a lever. | ¶28 | col. 4:55-56 |
| wherein when said lever is activated to pull on said pull bar, said pressure pins close said outer frame around said barbell | The lever, when pulled, causes the pressure pins to close the outer frame. | ¶28 | col. 4:57-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement "either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents" (Compl. ¶28), which suggests there may be minor technical differences between the Accused Product and the claim language. The core factual question will be whether the DMoose product's clamping mechanism operates in the specific manner recited by the claims, particularly the interaction between the lever, pull bar, and pressure pins. The complaint provides an image showing Plaintiff’s product is marked with the patent number, asserting that this provided notice (Compl. p. 5, Image).
- Scope Questions: The term "substantially cylindrical" may become a focus of dispute. The parties may contest the degree of deviation from a perfect cylinder that this term permits, which could be dispositive if the Accused Product's pins have a non-circular profile, taper, or other geometric variations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "substantially cylindrical in shape"
- Context and Importance: This term describes the geometry of the pressure pins, the components that directly contact and grip the barbell. The scope of "substantially" will be critical to the literal infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused pins are not perfectly cylindrical, the outcome of the case could depend on whether they fall within a reasonable interpretation of "substantially cylindrical."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification focuses on the function of the pins creating a "frictional fit" (ʼ856 Patent, Abstract) and does not provide an explicit definition of "substantially cylindrical." A party could argue the term should be interpreted functionally to cover any shape that achieves this frictional clamping purpose in a similar way.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures, such as Figure 6, depict pressure pins that appear to be perfect cylinders (ʼ856 Patent, Fig. 6). A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly to be consistent with these preferred embodiments, limiting it to shapes that are very close to true cylinders.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant "knew, should have known, or was willfully blind that its action would induce infringement" (Compl. ¶30). The prayer for relief also seeks an injunction against contributory infringement, but the complaint body does not plead specific facts to support this claim (Compl. p. 10, ¶I).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on several grounds. It asserts Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent rights due to Plaintiff’s online presence and the marking of its commercial products with the ’856 Patent number (Compl. ¶18, p. 5 Image). More specifically, it alleges that Defendant received a direct notice of infringement letter on June 24, 2022, and continued to infringe despite this notice (Compl. ¶19, ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court construe the term "substantially cylindrical in shape"? The answer will likely determine whether the Accused Product, based on its specific geometry, literally infringes Claim 1 of the ’856 Patent.
- An evidentiary question will relate to the mechanism of action: assuming the claim terms are construed, does the DMoose product's lever, pull bar, and pin assembly operate in the precise manner claimed? While the products appear visually similar, infringement will depend on proving the functional and structural identity required by the patent claims.
- A significant question for damages will be willfulness: did the Defendant have pre-suit knowledge of the ’856 Patent from Plaintiff's patent-marked products, and does the alleged continuation of sales after receiving a specific notice letter constitute willful infringement?