Balanced Body v. Guangzhou Oasis: $1.47M Judgment & Permanent Injunction
Balanced Body, Inc. secured a default judgment against Guangzhou Oasis, LLC after the defendant’s Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates Reformer was found to infringe U.S. Design Patent D659,205. The court awarded $1,470,000 in actual damages and issued a permanent import and sales injunction — resolved in just 193 days.
Default judgment delivers full relief in Pilates equipment design dispute
On 7 August 2023, Balanced Body, Inc. filed suit against Guangzhou Oasis, LLC and Trending Fit, LLC in the Central District of California (Case No. 5:23-cv-01575), alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D659,205. The asserted patent covers the ornamental design of a Pilates reformer, and the accused product was the Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates Reformer — a competing product sold under the ‘Elina Pilates’ brand by the defendants.
The case closed on 16 February 2024 — just 193 days after filing — when the court entered judgment against Guangzhou Oasis, LLC. The court’s order granted a permanent injunction barring the defendant and any party acting in concert with it from importing, selling, or offering for sale the accused reformer or any product not materially distinct from it. Balanced Body was simultaneously awarded $1,470,000 in actual damages and designated the prevailing party for cost purposes.
The swift resolution and the absence of recorded defendant counsel suggest this may have proceeded as a default judgment, consistent with a defendant that did not appear or contest the claims. The $1.47M actual damages figure implies Balanced Body presented quantified sales impact evidence. The public record does not disclose any settlement between the parties or the final disposition of costs, which remains pending before the Clerk. Trending Fit, LLC’s role in the final judgment is not specified in the verdict record.
Filing to settlement in 193 days
Case resolved in 193 days — well below average for design patent cases
Permanent injunction and $1.47M damages: what the judgment means
Default judgment: full relief without a contested trial
When a defendant fails to appear or respond, a court may enter default judgment and award the plaintiff the relief sought. Here, judgment was entered against Guangzhou Oasis without apparent contest. This means Balanced Body’s patent validity and infringement allegations were accepted as true for judgment purposes — a powerful but procedurally distinct outcome from a litigated verdict.
No defendant appearance on recordPermanent injunction blocks imports, sales, and near-identical products
The injunction covers not just the named Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates Reformer but any product ‘not materially distinct’ from it — a deliberately broad formulation. This extends the practical effect beyond a single SKU, putting distributors, retailers, and supply chain partners on notice. Any entity in privity with or acting in concert with Guangzhou Oasis is also bound, which may implicate Trending Fit, LLC.
Broad product scope — covers near-identical variants$1,470,000 in actual damages — not statutory or disgorgement
The court awarded actual damages, suggesting Balanced Body quantified its lost profits or lost sales attributable to the infringing product. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent holders may alternatively elect infringer’s total profits; the choice of actual damages here implies Balanced Body’s quantified losses were the stronger basis. The precise damages methodology is not disclosed in the public verdict record.
Actual damages elected over § 289 profitsPrevailing party status opens door to further cost recovery
The court designated Balanced Body as the prevailing party and directed it to re-file its bill of costs for Clerk review. This is a separate and ongoing process from the damages award. Depending on the Clerk’s determination, Balanced Body may recover filing fees, service costs, and other allowable expenses. Attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 are not mentioned in the verdict record.
Bill of costs pending Clerk reviewFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Balanced Body, Inc. | Company | Pilates equipment manufacturer — holder of U.S. Design Patent D659,205Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Guangzhou Oasis, LLC | Company | Guangzhou Oasis, LLC — importer/seller of the Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates ReformerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Spencer Bloch | Attorney | Counsel for Balanced Body, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel C. Means | Attorney | Counsel for Balanced Body, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Soyeon Jeong | Attorney | Counsel for Balanced Body, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | California Central District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The judgment is structured as four discrete orders: an infringement finding, a permanent injunction with materially-distinct product scope, a $1.47M actual damages award, and a prevailing party designation with costs reserved. The absence of defendant counsel and the speed of resolution are consistent with a default posture. Balanced Body obtained the maximum practical relief available — an injunction that extends to product variants and a damages figure based on quantified actual loss rather than the potentially lower statutory floor.
U.S. Patent D659,205 — Pilates reformer ornamental design
U.S. Design Patent No. D659,205 (application No. 29/397,235) protects the ornamental design of a Pilates reformer. Design patents cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product — the shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation — rather than its functional mechanics. Protection of this type is particularly effective in fitness equipment, where product appearance strongly influences purchasing decisions and brand identity. The patent is held by Balanced Body, Inc., a leading U.S. manufacturer of Pilates apparatus.
Design patents in the fitness equipment sector carry strategic weight because they are faster to obtain than utility patents and can be enforced against imported products with visually similar profiles. The Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates Reformer — a premium-positioned product sold in the U.S. market — was found to infringe D659,205, confirming that the patent’s claimed design has meaningful commercial scope. For competitors designing aluminum-frame reformers, this patent represents an active enforcement risk that extends beyond the Guangzhou Oasis product line.
Should your reformer design be cleared against U.S. Patent D659,205?
Any company importing, manufacturing, or distributing Pilates reformers — particularly premium aluminum-frame models — should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment against D659,205 before commercialisation. The court’s ‘not materially distinct’ standard means the risk boundary extends beyond exact replicas. Distributors, white-label OEMs, and online marketplaces carrying reformers with similar visual profiles are within the practical enforcement perimeter established by this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of D659,205 against your product’s design profile, flag visually similar design patents in Balanced Body’s portfolio, and surface prior art that may be relevant to design-around strategies. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if Balanced Body files continuation or divisional design applications in the reformer category — giving you early warning before a new enforcement action is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0659205S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in fitness equipment
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the fitness equipment IP landscape
A swift injunction and seven-figure damages award underscore how effectively design patents can stop imported competing products.
Design patents are high-leverage tools against imported fitness equipment
Balanced Body obtained both injunctive relief and $1.47M in damages in under 200 days — without a contested trial. For fitness equipment brands with distinctive product designs, this case illustrates that a single design patent can generate immediate, enforceable protection against imported look-alike products, particularly when defendants lack U.S. legal representation.
Broad injunction language creates risk for downstream distributors and retailers
The ‘materially distinct’ and ‘in privity or acting in concert’ language in the injunction extends liability risk beyond the named defendant. Retailers carrying Elina Pilates products or distributors sourcing from Guangzhou Oasis may face contempt exposure. Companies in adjacent supply chains should audit their product sourcing against active design patent injunctions in this category.
Balanced v Guangzhou — key questions answered
The Central District of California entered judgment against Guangzhou Oasis, LLC, finding that its Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates Reformer infringed U.S. Design Patent D659,205. The court awarded Balanced Body $1,470,000 in actual damages, issued a permanent injunction, and designated Balanced Body the prevailing party for costs purposes.
The injunction permanently bars Guangzhou Oasis and any person or entity in privity with or acting in concert with it from importing, selling, or offering for sale the accused Elina Pilates Premium Aluminum Pilates Reformer or any product not materially distinct from it. This broad scope means the injunction extends beyond the specific SKU to functionally similar designs.
U.S. Design Patent D659,205 (application 29/397,235) is a design patent owned by Balanced Body, Inc. It protects the ornamental appearance of a Pilates reformer. Design patents cover visual and aesthetic characteristics rather than functional features, making them effective tools against imported products that replicate a distinctive product appearance.
The verdict specifies ‘actual damages’ rather than the total profits remedy available under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement. This suggests Balanced Body chose to quantify its own losses — likely lost sales or lost profits — as the damages basis, indicating this measure produced a higher or more readily provable figure than the defendant’s profits. The specific methodology is not disclosed in the public record.
Trending Fit, LLC was named as a co-defendant alongside Guangzhou Oasis, LLC. The publicly available verdict record specifies the judgment and injunction against Guangzhou Oasis but does not detail separate findings against Trending Fit, LLC. The relationship between the two entities and Trending Fit’s ultimate disposition in the case is not confirmed in the available public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.