Believe Pursue LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Believe Pursue LLC (California)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-21415, S.D. Fla., 03/03/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have targeted sales to, and sold and shipped products into, the Southern District of Florida through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing its design patent for a hip thrust exercise belt by selling unauthorized and mimetic "Counterfeit Products."
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of personal fitness equipment, specifically a belt designed to facilitate weighted gluteal exercises known as hip thrusts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-08-11	U.S. Patent No. D983,897 Priority Date
2023-04-18	U.S. Patent No. D983,897 Issues
2026-03-03	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897, "Hip Thrust Belt", issued April 18, 2023 (the "'897 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '897 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead protects a unique ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture. The complaint alleges the associated commercial product provides a "comfortable and efficient way to perform hip thrusts" Compl. ¶16
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hip thrust belt D'897 Patent, claim The design's key visual features include the overall configuration of a central padded section with straps extending from either side, the particular proportions of the pad and straps, the looped ends of the straps, and the surface pattern depicted on the pad D'897 Patent, FIGs. 1, 9, 15
• Technical Importance: Plaintiff alleges its associated product was the "first to market" and featured a "game changing design" Compl. ¶16

Key Claims at a Glance

• The '897 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a hip thrust belt, as shown and described herein" D'897 Patent, claim
• The scope of the claim is defined by the patent's drawings, which depict the following key ornamental features:
  • An elongated, rectangular central pad with rounded corners.
  • A distinct, shaded surface pattern on the face of the central pad.
  • Two fabric straps, narrower than the pad, extending from the short ends of the pad.
  • Enclosed loops at the terminal ends of each strap.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" on platforms such as eBay Compl. ¶¶3-4 Compl. ¶46

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are advertised as exercise belts for performing hip thrusts with weights like dumbbells and kettlebells Compl. p.17 The complaint alleges these are "inferior imitations" sold through online storefronts designed to appear as if they are selling genuine "BELLABOOTY Products" Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶47 The complaint provides images of allegedly identical infringing products sold by 33 different "DOE" defendants, suggesting a common source of manufacture Compl. ¶47 Compl. pp.13-14

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As a design patent is at issue, infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." A traditional claim element-by-element analysis is not applicable. The core of the infringement allegation is a visual comparison between the patented design and the accused products.

The complaint's infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused products are visually "identical" to and "mimic" the design claimed in the '897 Patent Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶47 The primary evidence presented is a side-by-side comparison that juxtaposes figures from the '897 Patent with a screenshot from an eBay listing for an accused product Compl. p.17 This screenshot, titled "Exemplary Counterfeit Product Sold on Defendant Internet Store," depicts an exercise belt with an overall appearance, including a central pad shape and strap configuration, that Plaintiff contends is substantially the same as the patented design Compl. p.17 Further, the complaint includes a grid of product images from 33 different sellers, all appearing to show the same product design, which is intended to support the allegation of widespread and uniform infringement Compl. pp.13-14

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Substantial Similarity: The central legal and factual question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the competing designs.
  • Scope of Comparison: A question may arise as to the proper basis for comparison. The court will need to determine whether the analysis should be based on the product photographs used in online listings, such as the one provided in the complaint Compl. p.17, or on the physical products themselves, and whether any differences between the two are legally significant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As a design patent is at issue, there are no traditional claim terms for construction. The "claim" is defined by the drawings, and the scope of the patent is its overall ornamental appearance as depicted. The central legal question is not one of claim construction but of comparing the patented design to the accused design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the '897 Patent Prayer for Relief ¶2(d), the Second Cause of Action for patent infringement does not allege specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement Compl. ¶¶58-64 The allegations focus on direct infringement through acts of making, using, selling, and importing Compl. ¶59
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendants' infringement is willful Compl. ¶61 The basis for this allegation appears to be the overarching claim of counterfeiting, where Defendants are accused of selling "inferior imitations" and intentionally designing their online stores to mislead consumers Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶47 The complaint does not allege that Defendants had specific pre-suit knowledge of the '897 Patent itself.

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to several key questions:

• Visual Identity: The primary issue is a factual one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, upon viewing the accused exercise belts as depicted in the complaint's exhibits Compl. p.17, find their design to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D'897 Patent?
• Defendant Identification and Jurisdiction: A significant procedural question is whether Plaintiff can successfully identify, serve, and establish personal jurisdiction over the anonymous "DOE" defendants, who are alleged to be foreign entities operating through a network of online stores Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶49 The viability of the case hinges on overcoming this logistical challenge.
• Application of the "Ordinary Observer" Test: A legal question for the court will be how to apply the "ordinary observer" test in the context of e-commerce, where the initial point of comparison for a consumer is an online photograph rather than a physical product. The court's analysis may need to consider the level of detail visible in such listings and its effect on the overall visual impression.