DCT
1:26-cv-25070
FMT IP LLC v. One0one LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
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., 09/29/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all defendants reside in the Southern District of Florida, maintain a regular and established place of business there, and have committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fitness belts infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a fitness belt.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer fitness accessories market, where the visual and ornamental design of a product can be a significant differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was assigned to the plaintiff on June 16, 2025. It further alleges that beginning on July 8, 2025, the plaintiff sent multiple intellectual-property takedown notices to e-commerce platforms hosting the accused products, which may be relevant to the defendant's knowledge and potential willfulness.
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 |
| 2025-07-08 | Plaintiff began submitting takedown requests to e-commerce platforms |
| 2026-03-23 | Defendant MAL allegedly announced inventory liquidation via Instagram |
| 2026-09-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 address a functional problem but instead protects the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture shown in its drawings Compl. ¶16 ’320 Patent, claim
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims "The ornamental design for a fitness belt, as shown and described" ’320 Patent, claim The design consists of the visual characteristics depicted in solid lines in its figures. Key features include a wide, contoured primary belt panel combined with a narrower, overlying outer cinching band that appears to provide adjustable compression ’320 Patent, FIG. 1 ’320 Patent, FIG. 4 The design also includes a pattern of vertical ribs on the primary belt panel ’320 Patent, FIG. 2 The broken lines in the figures, such as the human form and certain textures, denote environmental subject matter or portions of the article that are not part of the claimed design ’320 Patent, description, col. 2:60-68
- Technical Importance: The patented design provides a specific aesthetic for a fitness belt, which may serve to distinguish the product in a competitive consumer marketplace.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the ornamental design as depicted in the patent’s drawings.
- The essential visual elements of the claim, as asserted by the plaintiff, include:
- The overall elongate, oval shape of the inner belt panel ’320 Patent, FIGs. 1-5
- The centrally positioned cinching band overlying the backing belt panel ’320 Patent, FIGs. 1-4
- The arrangement of vertical support ribs along the backing belt span ’320 Patent, FIGs. 2-4
- The overall contours and balance of the ornamental features shown in the figures ’320 Patent, FIGs. 1-7
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are waist belts sold by Defendant ONE0ONE, LLC Compl. ¶2
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are marketed and sold throughout the United States via proprietary websites, third-party marketplaces, and social-commerce channels Compl. ¶2 The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison showing the accused product, which is a black fitness belt with a main body and an outer tightening strap Compl. pp. 5-7 A photograph in the complaint shows the accused belt is branded with the words "one O one" on the outer strap Compl. p. 6
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a visual comparison between the figures from the ’320 Patent and photographs of the Accused Products Compl. pp. 5-7 The plaintiff alleges these images demonstrate that the Accused Products embody the patented design by including its "salient features" Compl. ¶22
’320 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Plaintiff's Asserted "Salient Features") | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall elongate, oval shape of the inner belt panel, showing the same silhouette and proportions | The accused product is alleged to have an inner belt panel with an elongate, oval shape and proportions that are substantially the same as the patented design. A provided photograph shows the accused product laid flat in this shape. | ¶22(a); p. 6 | col. 2:54-55 |
| The centrally positioned cinching band overlying the backing belt panel and overlapping connecting sections | The accused product is alleged to feature a centrally positioned outer cinching band that overlays the main belt panel. | ¶22(b); p. 5 | col. 2:50-53 |
| The arrangement of vertical support ribs along the backing belt span | The accused product is alleged to incorporate an arrangement of vertical support ribs along the main belt. | ¶22(c); p. 6 | col. 2:52-53 |
| The contours and balance of claimed ornamental features | The accused product is alleged to possess the same overall contours and visual balance as the patented design when viewed from various perspectives. | ¶22(d); p. 7 | col. 2:50-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central issue in design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test. The analysis will question whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.
- Visual Questions: The court may need to determine the effect of features present on the accused product but not shown in the patent, such as the "one O one" branding and circular logo on the cinching strap Compl. p. 6 The question will be whether these additions create a sufficiently different overall visual impression to avoid a finding of substantial similarity. Conversely, the analysis will focus on whether the similarities in overall shape, proportions, and the two-layer construction are strong enough to render such differences minor.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the design as a whole, depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of textual limitations. Formal claim construction focuses on identifying the scope of the claimed design from the figures, including what is and is not claimed.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a fitness belt, as shown and described"
- Context and Importance: The entire case hinges on the interpretation of the visual scope of the ’320 Patent. The court's construction will involve identifying the specific ornamental features protected by the solid lines in the patent's figures, which will then be compared to the accused product's design. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual elements are core to the "overall impression" of the design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim's scope covers any fitness belt with the general visual impression of a wide, contoured main belt combined with a narrower, overlying central cinching strap, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. This view would treat the overall configuration as the dominant feature and specific details as less significant.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue the scope is limited to the precise proportions, curvatures, and placement of the vertical ribs as explicitly shown in the solid-line drawings ’320 Patent, FIGs. 4-7 The description's explicit disclaimer of matter shown in broken lines, such as the human figure and stippling representing texture, confirms that the claim does not cover these aspects and narrows the focus to only what is shown in solid lines ’320 Patent, description, col. 2:60-68
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against all defendants, asserting they knowingly encouraged and aided resellers, affiliates, and customers to sell the Accused Products with the specific intent to infringe Compl. ¶42 The alleged inducing acts include operating an affiliate or reseller program and supplying marketing materials for the Accused Products Compl. ¶42
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on actual knowledge of the ’320 Patent, which the plaintiff claims defendants had no later than July 8, 2025, due to takedown notices sent to e-commerce platforms Compl. ¶40 The complaint points to defendants' alleged continued sales after notice, blocking the plaintiff's social media accounts, and announcing inventory liquidation as "egregious conduct" supporting a willfulness claim Compl. ¶40
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of visual similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, does the accused ONE0ONE fitness belt create an overall visual impression that is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’320 Patent, or are the differences, such as the prominent branding on the accused product, sufficient to distinguish the two designs in the eye of a typical purchaser?
- A second key issue will be one of personal liability: Has the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to support its "alter ego" theory and pierce the corporate veil, such that the individual defendants, Jimmy and Michelle Lewin, may be held personally liable for the company's alleged infringement? Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶37
- Finally, a critical question for damages will be willfulness: Does the alleged conduct following receipt of takedown notices—including continued sales and alleged efforts to evade the plaintiff—constitute the type of "egregious" behavior that would justify a finding of willful infringement and a potential award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284? Compl. ¶40
Analysis metadata