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 (People's Republic of China and/or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-21415, S.D. Fla., 09/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, conduct substantial business in the district, and have targeted Florida residents for sales by operating online stores that offer shipping to Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, a network of online e-commerce operators, are selling counterfeit hip thrust exercise belts that infringe Plaintiff's design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is a piece of personal fitness equipment—a belt designed to facilitate hip thrust exercises by holding weights such as dumbbells or kettlebells.
• Key Procedural History: This Amended Complaint was filed to comply with a court order by removing requests for interim, temporary, or preliminary injunctive relief, though it retains the demand for permanent injunctive relief. The complaint also notes that the list of Defendants on "Schedule A" was filed under seal.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-08-11	’897 Patent Priority Date
2023-04-18	’897 Patent Issue Date
2026-03-05	Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to File Schedule A Under Seal
2026-09-22	Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897 - "HIP THRUST BELT"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897 (the "’897 Patent"), "HIP THRUST BELT", issued April 18, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint describes Plaintiff's commercial product as the "first to market a hip thrust exercise belt" with a "game changing design," suggesting a need for a purpose-built, comfortable, and efficient device for performing such exercises at home Compl. ¶16 As a design patent, the '897 Patent addresses the problem of creating a novel and non-obvious ornamental appearance for such a belt.
• The Patented Solution: The '897 Patent protects the specific ornamental design of a hip thrust belt. The claim consists of the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings '897 Patent, claim Key design elements include a wide, rectangular central padded section with looped fabric straps extending from each end, as illustrated in the perspective view of Figure 1 and the unfolded view of Figure 9 '897 Patent, Fig. 1 '897 Patent, Fig. 9 The design creates a distinct visual impression for the product.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the design is a "leading supplier and manufacturer" and has earned an "international reputation for quality, reliability and value" Compl. ¶15

Key Claims at a Glance

• As a design patent, the '897 Patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hip thrust belt, as shown and described herein" '897 Patent, claim

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products," specifically hip thrust exercise belts sold by Defendants through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" on marketplace platforms such as eBay Compl. ¶¶2-4

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's genuine "BELLABOOTY Belt" Compl. ¶5 These products are allegedly advertised using the "same identical infringing product" image across numerous otherwise unrelated stores, suggesting a common source of manufacture Compl. ¶47 The complaint provides a screenshot from an eBay listing for an accused product, described as a "Bellabooty Exercise Hip Thrust Belt, Easy to Use with Dumbbells, Kettlebells," demonstrating how the products are marketed to consumers seeking Plaintiff's product Compl. p. 18

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

The complaint's infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison. It alleges that Defendants sell "products that mimic those covered by the BELLABOOTY Patent" Compl. ¶46 The core of this allegation is supported by extensive visual evidence. The complaint provides 33 images of "Exemplary Counterfeit Products Sold on Defendant Internet Stores," all showing a product with a visual appearance that Plaintiff alleges is identical and infringing Compl. ¶47, pp. 13-15 A direct comparison is also offered between figures from the '897 Patent and an "Exemplary Counterfeit Product Sold on Defendant Internet Store," arguing for substantial similarity Compl. ¶60, p. 17 Compl. p. 18 For example, the screenshot of an eBay listing shows an accused product that, like the patented design, features a wide central pad with straps extending from either end, designed to be used for hip thrusts Compl. p. 18 The infringement argument is that the overall ornamental design of these accused products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '897 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be the application of the ordinary observer test. Does the overall ornamental appearance of the accused belts, as depicted in the complaint Compl. ¶47, pp. 13-15 Compl. p. 18, create a visual impression that is substantially the same as the claimed design in the '897 Patent?
• Technical Questions: While not strictly technical, a key factual question will be one of sourcing. Does the evidence of identical product images across multiple "Defendant Internet Stores" Compl. ¶47 sufficiently establish that the various unnamed defendants are marketing products from a common source that infringes the '897 Patent, thereby justifying joinder?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms, as claim construction of specific terms is generally not a feature of design patent litigation. The dispute centers on a comparison of the claimed overall design, as depicted in the patent's figures, with the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement Compl. ¶59 The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the '897 Patent Compl. ¶2(d), p. 20 The factual basis for this appears to be the operation of e-commerce stores that enable infringement by others.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful Compl. ¶61 The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants are engaged in counterfeiting, designing their stores to appear to be selling genuine products while actually selling "inferior imitations" Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶47 This suggests knowledge based on the alleged act of intentionally copying a known commercial product.

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

• A primary legal and factual question will be one of visual similarity: In the eye of an ordinary observer, and in light of any relevant prior art, is the ornamental design of the accused belts substantially the same as the design claimed in the '897 Patent?
• A significant procedural challenge will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: Given that the Defendants are alleged to be a network of anonymous, foreign-based e-commerce operators Compl. ¶23, can the Plaintiff effectively identify, serve, and enforce any potential judgment against them?
• A third key question will involve damages and joinder: Can the Plaintiff prove that the numerous, seemingly independent online storefronts are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a "series of transactions" Compl. ¶50, justifying their joinder in a single action and potentially aggregating damages?