FMT IP LLC v. One0one LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FMT IP, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: One0one, LLC (Florida); JIMMY ANDERS LEWIN (individual); MICHELLE ANDREA LEWIN (individual)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: 500law
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-25070, S.D. Fla., 07/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendants' residence within the district, their commission of infringing acts within the district, and Defendant ONE0ONE, LLC maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' waist belts infringe a design patent covering the ornamental design of a fitness belt.
• Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the competitive market for fitness accessories, where the unique ornamental appearance of a product can be a significant commercial differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff FMT IP, LLC acquired the patent-in-suit by assignment on June 16, 2025. The complaint alleges that beginning on June 20, 2025, Plaintiff sent intellectual-property takedown requests to e-commerce platforms hosting Defendants' products, thereby providing notice of the alleged infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-02-26	'320 Patent Priority Date
2018-03-20	'320 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-16	'320 Patent assigned to Plaintiff FMT IP, LLC
2025-06-20	Plaintiff began submitting takedown requests to e-commerce platforms
2026-03-23	Defendant MAL allegedly announced inventory liquidation on Instagram
2026-07-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D813,320 - "Fitness Belt"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D813,320 (the "'320 Patent"), "Fitness Belt", issued March 20, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '320 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture Compl. ¶12 '320 Patent, claim
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a fitness belt as depicted in its seven figures '320 Patent, claim The design is characterized by an elongate, contoured main belt panel, overlaid by a separate, centrally positioned outer cinching band '320 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 2:2-12 The rear view highlights a specific arrangement of vertical support ribs within the main panel '320 Patent, FIG. 2 The scope of the claimed design is defined by the solid lines in the drawings; broken lines depicting a human figure and certain surface details are explicitly disclaimed as not forming part of the invention '320 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 2:22-29
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct aesthetic for a fitness belt, which may serve as a source identifier and point of differentiation in the consumer fitness apparel market Compl. ¶1

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the single claim of the '320 Patent Compl. ¶1
• The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a fitness belt, as shown and described" '320 Patent, claim The elements of the claim are the visual features depicted in the patent's figures, which the complaint alleges include:
  • The overall elongate, oval shape of the inner belt panel Compl. ¶22(a)
  • A centrally positioned cinching band overlying the main belt panel Compl. ¶22(b)
  • An arrangement of vertical support ribs along the backing belt span Compl. ¶22(c)
  • The overall contours and balance of the claimed ornamental features Compl. ¶22(d)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are waist belts manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendant ONE0ONE, LLC Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are described as fitness-related waist belts sold throughout the United States via e-commerce storefronts, including a proprietary website (www.one0one.com), third-party marketplaces, and social media channels Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶28 The complaint provides visual evidence in the form of a side-by-side comparison between the patented design and the Accused Products Compl. ¶21 This comparison shows the Accused Product, which is a waist belt featuring a prominent "ONE ONE" logo on its outer strap Compl. ¶21, p. 5

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "identical to, or substantially the same as," the design claimed in the '320 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶23

'320 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Ornamental Feature)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall elongate, oval shape of the inner belt panel, showing the same silhouette and proportions of the invention	The Accused Products are alleged to embody the same overall shape and silhouette as depicted in the patent's figures.	¶22(a)	col. 2:8-12
The centrally positioned cinching band overlying the backing belt panel and overlapping connecting sections	The Accused Products allegedly feature a similar centrally located outer cinching band over a main belt panel. A photograph of the accused product's front view illustrates this configuration Compl. ¶21, p. 5	¶22(b)	col. 2:2-5
The arrangement of vertical support ribs along the backing belt span	The complaint alleges the Accused Products incorporate a similar arrangement of vertical ribs on the rear section of the belt. A rear-view photograph of the accused product shows these features Compl. ¶21, p. 5	¶22(c)	col. 2:6-7
The contours and balance of claimed ornamental features as shown in the FIGs. 1-7	The complaint asserts that the overall visual impression created by the Accused Products' contours and proportions is substantially the same as that of the patented design.	¶22(d)	col. 2:2-18

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused belt is "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis may focus on whether the prominent "ONE ONE" branding on the accused product is a sufficient point of differentiation to avoid a finding of infringement, or if it is merely surface ornamentation on an otherwise copied design.
• Technical Questions: Since this is a design patent case, the dispute is not about technical operation but about visual appearance. An evidentiary question will be how the features of the accused product compare to the specific visual elements defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings, and what weight should be given to any similarities or differences.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the design itself as shown in the drawings. Claim construction, therefore, focuses on determining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than defining specific text-based terms.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a fitness belt"
• Context and Importance: The resolution of the case depends entirely on the interpretation of the claimed design's scope and how it compares to the accused product's design. The court's construction will involve identifying the specific ornamental features protected by the patent, as distinguished from any functional elements or disclaimed portions shown in broken lines.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may emphasize the overall visual impression created by the combination of the belt's shape, the dual-layer strap configuration, and the arrangement of the vertical ribs, as depicted in the patent's figures '320 Patent, FIGs. 1-7 Such an argument may suggest that these core features define the design, and minor variations or the addition of branding do not alter the substantially similar overall appearance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope may focus on the precise contours and proportions shown in the solid lines of the drawings, arguing that the patent protects only that exact configuration. This position could be supported by the patent's disclaimer of certain elements in broken lines, suggesting the claimed design is specific and limited '320 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 2:22-29 Any deviation from the claimed solid-line features, including the presence of prominent branding on the accused product, may be argued as a basis for non-infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement against all defendants Compl. ¶¶40-42 The factual basis for this claim includes allegations that Defendants instruct and encourage resellers and customers to market and sell the Accused Products, supply marketing materials, and use social media accounts to promote sales, with knowledge of the '320 Patent and the intent to cause infringement Compl. ¶41

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' purported actual knowledge of the '320 Patent Compl. ¶39 This knowledge is allegedly established by Plaintiff's takedown notices sent to e-commerce platforms beginning on June 20, 2025, and an allegation that the individual defendants had previously purchased Plaintiff's patented fitness belt Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶39 The complaint asserts that Defendants' continued sales after receiving notice constitute egregious conduct warranting enhanced damages Compl. ¶39

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

• The Ordinary Observer Test and Branding: The central issue will be whether an ordinary observer, in light of the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing Defendants' belt believing it to be the patented design. A key facet of this inquiry will be the legal effect of the prominent "ONE ONE" branding on the accused product: does it create a sufficiently distinct visual impression to avoid infringement, or is the underlying design substantially the same as that claimed in the '320 Patent?
• Scope of the Design Claim: The case may turn on the perceived scope of the '320 Patent's design. The court will need to determine whether the claim covers the general aesthetic combination of a contoured belt with an outer cinching strap and vertical ribs, or if it is limited to the exact, unbranded visual representation depicted in the patent's solid lines.
• Personal Liability of Individuals: A significant legal question will be whether the complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to support piercing the corporate veil of ONE0ONE, LLC and holding the individual defendants personally liable for infringement. This will depend on the sufficiency of allegations that they are the "alter ego" of the company and acted as a "moving, active, and conscious force" behind the infringing conduct Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶36