1:26-cv-10833
Scarpa v. Rogue Fitness
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nazzaro R. Scarpa (pro se)
- Defendant: Rogue Fitness; Target; Titan Fitness; Iron Master; PRX Performance; Bear Komplex; Aviron
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro se
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-10833, D. Mass., 02/12/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction and venue are proper in the First Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a) and (b).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "loadable dumbbells" infringe a patent for rolling dumbbells that combine the functionality of a traditional dumbbell with a rolling exercise device like an ab wheel.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to multi-functional exercise equipment, a market segment where products often combine features to save space and provide varied workouts.
- Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-12-15 | U.S. Patent 10,335,628 Priority Date |
| 2019-07-02 | U.S. Patent 10,335,628 Issued |
| 2026-02-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,335,628 - "ROLLING DUMBELLS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,335,628 (the '628 Patent), "ROLLING DUMBELLS", issued July 2, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the field of user-manipulated exercise weights for strengthening muscles '628 Patent, col. 1:26-28 The complaint further frames the problem as a desire to combine the function of a standard dumbbell with an "ab Wheel" into a single device Compl. ¶12 The patent itself presents its solution as an "alternate attachment mechanism" for a previously disclosed rolling dumbbell design '628 Patent, col. 2:1-3
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a dumbbell constructed around a central "threaded rod" that passes through a hand grip '628 Patent, col. 3:7-12 '628 Patent, Fig. 4 On each end of the rod, a weighted wheel is attached, with each wheel containing a ball bearing to allow it to rotate freely and independently of the grip '628 Patent, col. 8:26-34 The entire assembly is secured by nuts screwed onto the ends of the threaded rod '628 Patent, abstract '628 Patent, col. 3:5-6 This design allows the apparatus to be used for traditional lifting exercises as well as rolling exercises (e.g., push-ups or ab rollouts) where the user's hands remain on the stationary grip while the wheels roll on the floor Compl. ¶12
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a dual-use piece of exercise equipment, potentially offering greater versatility and space efficiency compared to owning separate dumbbells and ab rollers.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not identify any specific claims as being infringed. Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
- Independent Claim 1 (Essential Elements):
- An exercise device comprising a "threaded rod," a "first nut," and a "second nut."
- The rod, nuts, first wheel, and second wheel are attached to a "grip."
- The first wheel comprises a "first weighted wheel," a "first ball bearing," and a "first threaded center."
- The second wheel comprises a "second weighted wheel," a "second ball bearing," and a "second threaded center."
- The first ball bearing is "coaxially installed in the first weighted wheel."
- The threaded rod forms threaded connections with the nuts and the threaded centers of the wheels.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses "Loadable dumbbells" sold by the various defendants (Compl. ¶¶13, 16). No specific product models are identified.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are "versatile" dumbbells that take the "key design and elements of a full size ohio bar and Condences it into a... dumbbell" Compl. ¶13 The core accused functionality is the use of a "bearing" and a "bearing Cylinder" that "allows loadable dumbbell weight plates to roll Freely around it's handle" Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶18 The complaint states these products are designed to be used for exercises like push-ups and "Flys on the floor," functioning as an ab wheel or allowing free motion in any direction Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶17 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart or map specific product features to claim limitations. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint as they relate to the elements of independent claim 1 of the '628 Patent.
- '628 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An exercise device comprising... a grip | The accused products are identified as "Loadable dumbbells" with a "handle" Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶17 | ¶13; ¶17 | col. 4:8-9 |
| a first wheel... comprises a first weighted wheel | The accused products are alleged to use "loadable dumbbell weight plates" Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶18 | ¶13; ¶18 | col. 3:13-15 |
| a first ball bearing | The accused products are alleged to utilize "a bearing, a bearing Cylinder" Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶18 | ¶13; ¶18 | col. 3:15-22 |
| wherein the first ball bearing is coaxially installed in the first weighted wheel such that the center axes... are aligned | The accused functionality allows "weight plates to roll Freely around it's handle" Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶17 | ¶13; ¶17 | col. 8:26-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Mismatch: A primary question will be whether the defendants' products, which the complaint likens to a condensed "ohio bar" Compl. ¶13, use the specific assembly recited in claim 1. For example, do the accused products actually use a single "threaded rod" that passes through the grip and forms threaded connections with the wheels and external nuts, or do they use a different mechanism, such as a rotating sleeve over a fixed handle, to achieve a similar rolling function?
- Evidentiary Gaps: The complaint's allegations are functional and conceptual (e.g., "The function, design and Concept... Violates plaintiffs patent") Compl. ¶16 A key point of contention will be whether the plaintiff can produce evidence that any specific accused product contains the precise structural elements of claim 1, such as the "first threaded center" located within the ball bearing or the specific use of securing nuts.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, certain terms may become central to the case.
The Term: "threaded rod"
Context and Importance: This is the core structural component upon which the entire patented assembly is built '628 Patent, col. 8:16-21 Whether the accused products contain a structure meeting this definition will be critical for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the claimed invention from other dumbbell designs that feature rotating sleeves or different axle assemblies.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component as a "commercially available cylindrical rod," which may suggest that a standard, off-the-shelf part without unique properties is sufficient '628 Patent, col. 4:42-43
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires this rod to form "a plurality of threaded connections" with the nuts, the grip's axial aperture, and the threaded centers of both wheels '628 Patent, col. 8:16-21 '628 Patent, col. 9:33-38 This functional requirement could narrow the term to a rod that is specifically threaded to engage these multiple, distinct components along its length.
The Term: "ball bearing"
Context and Importance: This element provides the essential "rolling" functionality and is explicitly mentioned in the complaint's infringement theory Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶18 The manner in which the bearing is integrated into the wheel assembly is a key feature of the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent refers to it as a "commercially available disk shaped ball bearing," suggesting a standard component is contemplated '628 Patent, col. 3:15-16
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the bearing to be "coaxially installed in the first weighted wheel" and for a "first threaded center" to be "formed in a coaxial manner through the first ball bearing" '628 Patent, col. 8:26-34 This specific structural arrangement—where the threaded connection point is part of or passes through the bearing itself—could be interpreted narrowly, potentially excluding designs where a bearing simply sits around a non-threaded axle.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any facts that would support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent to cause infringement by others.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that defendants had knowledge of the '628 patent prior to the lawsuit, which is a predicate for willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Pleading Sufficiency: An initial procedural question is whether the complaint's high-level, conceptual allegations of infringement meet the plausibility standard required to state a claim, or if they are vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for failing to identify specific accused products and map their features to the patent's claims.
- Structural Equivalence: The central technical question will be one of structural and functional mapping. Can the plaintiff demonstrate that any of the defendants' "loadable dumbbells"—which may use common rotating sleeve designs—contain the specific mechanical assembly recited in claim 1, particularly the continuous "threaded rod" that secures the grip and both wheels via threaded connections?
- Definitional Scope: A key legal dispute may center on the construction of "threaded rod." Can this term be construed to cover modern dumbbell handle assemblies that allow weight plates to spin but do not use a single, continuous, threaded axle that passes through the entire device as depicted in the '628 patent?