DCT

1:26-cv-02481

Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Bala Bangles Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02481, E.D.N.Y., 04/26/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, selling products in New York, and the alleged infringement occurring within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its weighted exercise bands do not infringe Defendant's design patent and that the patent is invalid, and further alleges that Defendant tortiously interfered with its business by making infringement assertions to Amazon.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of wearable exercise weights, a product category where aesthetic appearance is a significant factor in consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows Defendant's assertion of its patent against Plaintiff on the Amazon e-commerce platform, which resulted in the "lockdown" of Plaintiff's product listings. The complaint notes that Plaintiff's own, allegedly different design was granted a U.S. design patent after being examined in view of the Defendant's patent, which Plaintiff offers as evidence of distinctiveness. Plaintiff also raises an invalidity challenge based on a prior Korean design registration.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-03-22 Priority Date, 'D167 Patent
2020-06-23 Issue Date, U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167
2024-08-20 Issue Date, U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,628 (Plaintiff's Patent)
2025-05-12 Defendant filed complaint against Plaintiff with Amazon
2026-04-26 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D888,167 - "WEIGHTED EXERCISE BAND"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D888,167 ("WEIGHTED EXERCISE BAND"), issued June 23, 2020 (the "'167 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '167 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. It protects the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, in this case, a weighted exercise band.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a weighted exercise band as depicted in its figures '167 Patent, claim The design consists of an assembly of eight elongated, pill-shaped weights arranged in a sequence and held together by an unseen band '167 Patent, FIG. 1 '167 Patent, FIG. 4 Key ornamental features shown in solid lines, and thus part of the claimed design, include the shape of the individual bars, their abutting arrangement, and the specific surface line patterns on the top and end surfaces of each bar '167 Patent, FIG. 4 '167 Patent, FIG. 6 Portions of the band shown in broken lines are not part of the claimed design '167 Patent, description
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic for wearable weights, seeking to differentiate the product in the competitive fitness accessory market through its visual appearance Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The complaint asserts non-infringement of this claim.
  • The claim is for "The ornamental design for a weighted exercise band, as shown and described" '167 Patent, claim The scope of this claim is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the solid lines of the patent's nine figures. Its essential elements include:
    • The overall configuration of a band comprising eight elongated bars with rounded ends.
    • The specific surface ornamentation on the top of each bar, depicted as two vertical and two horizontal lines.
    • The arrangement of the eight bars directly abutting one another.
    • The specific line-art decoration on the end surfaces of the bars.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The products at issue are Plaintiff's "weight bands" sold on the Amazon platform under the store name "NOONCRAZYPRO Store" Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

  • Like the patented design, Plaintiff's products are wearable weighted bands used for exercise Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶10 The complaint presents them as having a "completely different" design from that protected by the '167 Patent Compl. ¶10 An image provided in the complaint shows Plaintiff's product, which also consists of a series of rectangular weights on a band Compl. p. 3
  • The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers in the U.S. via Amazon and that Defendant's infringement assertions wrongfully halted their sale, causing substantial damages Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶14

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its allegations focus on the visual differences between Plaintiff's product and the claimed design, arguing that an ordinary observer would not be deceived into believing the designs are the same. A comparison table within the complaint highlights differences in surface ornamentation on the end of the weight bar Compl. p. 7

D888,167 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from '167 Design) Alleged Non-Infringing Feature (per Plaintiff) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The top surface of the weight bars is decorated with two vertical lines and two horizontal lines. The flat surface of the Plaintiff's weight bar is decorated with five vertical lines. ¶20 col. 1:37-38
The claimed weight band has all eight weight bars touching each other. Plaintiff's weight band has gaps between adjacent weight bars, specifically between bars #2 and #3, and bars #4 and #5. ¶21 col. 1:37-38
Both ends of the weight bars are decorated by one horizontal line and two vertical lines. The end of the Plaintiff's weight bar is mostly smooth with five parallel lines on half of the surface. ¶24 col. 1:41-42
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The core dispute is one of visual similarity. A central question is whether the claimed design, which depicts eight consistently abutting bars, can be read to cover a product that has visible gaps between some of its bars Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶23
    • Ornamentation Questions: The analysis will turn on whether the differences in surface ornamentation-five vertical lines on the accused product versus the two vertical and two horizontal lines of the patented design-are substantial enough to create a different overall visual impression for an ordinary observer Compl. ¶20 The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison to emphasize this difference Compl. p. 6 A similar question arises regarding the differing designs on the end surfaces of the bars Compl. ¶24
    • Evidentiary Questions: Plaintiff raises the question of whether the allowance of its own U.S. Design Patent (the 'D628 Patent) over the 'D167 Patent by a USPTO examiner serves as persuasive evidence that the two designs are patentably distinct and therefore not substantially similar Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶26

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are typically no claim terms to construe. The analysis is a visual comparison of the drawings to the accused product. However, the scope of the claimed design is at issue.

  • The "Term": The ornamental design as a whole, "as shown and described" '167 Patent, claim
  • Context and Importance: The case's outcome depends on the scope of the design's visual impression. Practitioners may focus on whether the specific surface patterns and the abutting nature of the bars are essential, defining features of the claimed design, or merely minor details of a broader overall impression of a pill-shaped weight bracelet.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Defendant's likely position): A party arguing for a broader scope might emphasize the overall configuration shown in the perspective views, such as the general shape and arrangement of the eight bars in a series to form a band '167 Patent, FIG. 1 '167 Patent, FIG. 8 They may argue that an ordinary observer would focus on this general appearance rather than on minor surface line details.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Plaintiff's position): The complaint points to evidence supporting a narrower scope. The patent drawings consistently show all eight bars directly touching, with no gaps, which may suggest the "abutting" feature is a required element of the design '167 Patent, FIG. 1 '167 Patent, FIG. 4 Furthermore, the specific surface patterns on the top and ends of the bars are drawn in solid lines, indicating they are part of the claimed design and not merely environmental '167 Patent, FIG. 4 '167 Patent, FIG. 6

VI. Other Allegations

  • Tortious Interference with Business Relationship: The complaint includes a second count for tortious interference Compl. ¶¶29-36 It alleges that Defendant knew of Plaintiff's business relationship with Amazon and its customers Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶31 and "knowingly filed a frivolous complaint against Plaintiff to Amazon" Compl. ¶33 Plaintiff claims this action constituted an abuse of Amazon's store-closing process and was intended to harm Plaintiff's business, resulting in lost sales and other damages Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶36

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

  1. A Question of Visual Impression: For the declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the central issue is whether, under the "ordinary observer" test, the visual differences highlighted by the Plaintiff-specifically the surface line patterns, end-cap designs, and the presence of gaps between bars-are significant enough to create a distinct overall visual appearance from the '167 Patent's claimed design.
  2. A Question of Validity: For the declaratory judgment of invalidity, the court will need to determine if the asserted prior art, such as the Korean Design Registration 'KR806 Compl. ¶13, anticipates or renders obvious the ornamental design claimed in the '167 Patent.
  3. A Question of Intent: For the tortious interference claim, the key question will be one of motive and justification. The court will examine whether Defendant's infringement complaint to Amazon was a good-faith effort to enforce its patent rights or a "frivolous" and malicious act intended to disrupt a competitor's business, with the outcome potentially depending on the strength of the underlying infringement claim.
Loading Complaint