Coulter Ventures LLC v. Tko Strength & Performance Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coulter Ventures, LLC d/b/a Rogue Fitness (Ohio)
  • Defendant: TKO Strength & Performance Inc. (Texas) and Defiant Strength Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 4:26-cv-07155, S.D. Tex., 08/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper on the basis that Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's barbells and barbell collars infringe one design patent and two utility patents related to strength-training equipment.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the ornamental design of barbells and the mechanical structure of clamping devices (collars) used to secure weights to barbells.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted D'513 patent is a reissue of U.S. Design Patent No. 843,524, a fact that may introduce questions regarding the scope and validity of the asserted design claim. The two asserted utility patents, the '659 and '263 patents, are part of the same patent family and share a common specification, suggesting that prosecution history and claim construction arguments for one may be relevant to the other. The '263 patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-10-06	D'513 Patent Priority Date
2014-11-14	'659 and '263 Patents Priority Date
2019-03-12	'659 Patent Issue Date
2019-05-19	D'513 Patent Original Issue Date (as D'843,524)
2021-03-23	'263 Patent Issue Date
2023-05-02	D'513 Patent Reissue Date
2026-08-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent Reissue No. 49,513 - "Barbell"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent Reissue No. 49,513 ("D'513 Patent"), "Barbell," issued May 2, 2023 Compl. ¶10

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a barbell D'513 Patent, CLAIM
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a barbell, focusing on the configuration and surface ornamentation of the collar and sleeve assembly located at the ends of the bar shaft D'513 Patent, FIGS. 14-15 The design features a particular arrangement of grooves and contours on the sleeve assembly D'513 Patent, FIG. 14
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinctive aesthetic for the product, which can serve as a source identifier and point of differentiation in the competitive fitness equipment market Compl. ¶8

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a barbell, as shown and described" D'513 Patent, CLAIM

U.S. Patent No. 10,226,659 - "Clamping Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,226,659 ("'659 Patent"), "Clamping Device," issued March 12, 2019 Compl. ¶11

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies several problems with prior art barbell collars, including their propensity to damage the barbell, their failure to remain securely engaged during exercise, and tradeoffs between security, ease of use, and manufacturing cost '659 Patent, col. 2:4-29
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a clamping device with a C-shaped primary body and an integrated lever. When the lever is moved from an open to a closed position, it interacts with two pins via "arcuate and elongated" holes, causing the ends of the C-shaped body to draw together '659 Patent, col. 3:48-65 This action reduces the device's inner diameter, allowing it to clamp securely onto a barbell shaft '659 Patent, abstract '659 Patent, FIG. 3
• Technical Importance: This design purports to offer a clamping device that is secure, easy to operate, and can be economically manufactured, addressing shortcomings of previous designs '659 Patent, col. 2:25-29

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶28
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A "primary member" with a first and second extremity, each having a pin, and a "generally cylindrical body."
  • A "lever moveably connected to the primary member" that has a first and second "hole being arcuate and elongated" for receiving the respective pins.
  • The lever is movable between an open and closed position, causing the distance between the pins to decrease.
  • This movement brings the extremities of the primary member closer together, "thereby reducing a width of the central passage" to create a clamping force.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1" Compl. ¶28, reserving the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,953,263 - "Clamping Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,953,263 ("'263 Patent"), "Clamping Device," issued March 23, 2021 Compl. ¶12
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family as the '659 Patent, the '263 Patent also discloses a clamping device for securing weights on exercise equipment '263 Patent, col. 1:5-14 The invention centers on a C-shaped body with an attached lever that, when actuated, constricts the body to clamp onto a barbell '263 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶37
• Accused Features: The "Quick Lock Olympic Collars w/ Magnets" are accused of infringing the '263 Patent Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶37

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two categories of accused products:
  • Infringing Bars: A range of barbells sold by Defendants, including the "Olympic Middle Weight Needle Bearing Bar," "Middle Weight Power Bar," and "Heavy Weight Power Bar" Compl. ¶16
  • Infringing Collars: The "Quick Lock Olympic Collars w/ Magnets" Compl. ¶17

Functionality and Market Context

• The Infringing Bars are barbells used for strength training Compl. ¶16 The complaint alleges Defendants market these through overlapping websites under the TKO and Defiant brands Compl. ¶4
• The Infringing Collars are mechanical clamps designed to slide onto the sleeve of a barbell and lock in place, preventing weight plates from shifting or falling off during use Compl. ¶17
• The complaint includes Illustration 4, a side-by-side comparison of the accused "Olympic Middle Weight Needle Bearing Bar" against excerpts from the D'513 patent and a photo of Rogue's own product Compl. p. 7, Illustration 4

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of the accused Infringing Bars is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'513 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived Compl. ¶21 The infringement allegation is supported by Illustration 4, which juxtaposes images of an accused barbell with figures from the D'513 Patent Compl. p. 7, Illustration 4 The visual comparison focuses on the shape and ornamentation of the barbell's sleeve and collar assembly.

The complaint references external exhibits (Exhibits D and E) containing claim charts for the '659 and '263 patents, respectively, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶39 Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on a provided chart is not possible. The complaint's narrative theory asserts that the Infringing Collars "satisfy each and every element of at least claim 1" of both the '659 Patent and the '263 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶38 The complaint provides visual support for this theory in Illustration 5, which compares the accused "Quick Lock Olympic Collars w/ Magnets" against a figure from the '263 patent and photos of Rogue's corresponding product Compl. p. 9, Illustration 5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • For the D'513 Patent: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, examining the overall ornamental design, would find the accused barbells to be substantially the same as the patented design. The analysis will likely focus on the specific configuration of ridges, grooves, and overall proportions of the sleeve assembly shown in the patent's figures compared to those of the accused products.
  • For the '659 Patent: Since the complaint's images do not show the internal mechanism of the accused collar, a primary point of contention may be whether the accused device actually contains a lever with "arcuate and elongated" holes that interact with pins as explicitly required by Claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence revealing the internal structure and operation of the accused collars.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "arcuate and elongated" (from Claim 1 of the '659 Patent)
• Context and Importance: This term describes the shape of the holes in the lever that engage with the pins on the primary member. The shape of these holes dictates the mechanical action that produces the clamping force. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will hinge on whether the internal, unseen mechanism of the accused collar utilizes this specific geometry.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning. An argument could be made that any curved slot that allows the pins to travel as the lever pivots would meet this limitation '659 Patent, col. 3:55-59
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent depict a specific curved path for the holes (113, 114) '659 Patent, FIG. 1 '659 Patent, FIG. 2 A party could argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to match the particular shape and curvature shown in these embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a separate claim for either induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused products Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶37
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is "deliberate, intentional, and willful" Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶41 This allegation is based on the assertion that "Defendants looked to Rogue's products when choosing the design of the infringing products" and were "intentionally freeriding off Rogue's investments" Compl. ¶18 The complaint also notes that Rogue provides notice to the public of its patent rights via virtual marking, which could be used to establish knowledge Compl. ¶14

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to several key questions:

1. A core issue for the design patent claim will be one of visual perception: Does the ornamental design of the accused barbells appear "substantially the same" as the D'513 patent's design to an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences in the collar and sleeve assembly to distinguish them and avoid infringement?

2. A critical evidentiary question for the utility patent claims will be one of mechanical operation: Do the accused collars utilize the specific internal mechanism recited in the asserted claims, particularly a lever with "arcuate and elongated" holes that engage pins to create clamping force, or do they achieve a similar result through a different, non-infringing design?

3. The willfulness claim will raise a question of intent and knowledge: What evidence exists to support the allegation of deliberate copying, as suggested by the complaint's side-by-side comparisons, versus independent product development? Furthermore, did Defendants have pre-suit knowledge of the patents, potentially through Rogue's virtual patent marking?