Xiamen Tingken v. Bala Bangles: SDNY Transfers Weighted Band Patent Case in 6 Days
A Chinese electronics manufacturer sued fitness brand Bala Bangles in Manhattan, seeking a declaration that its weighted exercise band does not infringe design patent USD888167S. The Southern District of New York identified a venue defect within days and transferred the action to the Eastern District — the entire SDNY chapter closing in just 6 days.
Venue Misstep Ends SDNY Chapter Before It Begins
On June 19, 2025, Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company headquartered in China, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Bala Bangles, Inc. — a California-incorporated fitness accessories brand — and individual defendants Natalie and Maximilian Kislevitz. Tingken sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of design patent USD888167S, which covers a weighted exercise band, alongside claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 and for tortious interference.
The Complaint alleged venue based on the Kislevitzes residing in New York, Bala Bangles having a regular place of business in New York, and infringement occurring in New York. However, the Kislevitzes reside in Brooklyn — within the Eastern District — and the Complaint offered no factual basis for Bala Bangles having an established place of business in the Southern District. On June 23, 2025, Judge Gregory H. Woods issued an order to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff consented the following day, and the case was transferred on June 25, 2025 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The six-day lifespan of this SDNY action reflects a notably swift venue correction, suggesting either a strategic miscalculation or optimistic forum selection by Tingken’s counsel. The public record does not reveal whether substantive settlement discussions are underway, nor does it disclose the commercial scale of the alleged infringement. The merits of the non-infringement and invalidity claims — and Bala Bangles’ response — remain entirely unresolved and will now be addressed, if at all, before the Eastern District of New York.
Filing to Case Transferred in 6 days
6 days in SDNY — well below median district court pendency; case transferred before substantive proceedings
SDNY to EDNY: what the venue transfer means for both parties
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a): transfer to cure improper venue
Section 1406(a) allows a federal court to transfer a case filed in the wrong district to any district where it could have been brought. Unlike § 1404(a) convenience transfers, § 1406(a) transfers address a defective venue — here, the Southern District lacked sufficient nexus because the individual defendants reside in Brooklyn, which falls within the Eastern District. The transfer preserves the case rather than dismissing it, meaning the filing date and claims carry forward intact.
Venue cured, not dismissedTingken consents to transfer — claims survive in EDNY
By consenting to the transfer rather than contesting it, Xiamen Tingken preserved its declaratory judgment action and avoided potential dismissal. The non-infringement and invalidity claims against USD888167S, as well as the GBL § 349 and tortious interference claims, now proceed in the Eastern District. Consenting also signals Tingken’s intent to pursue the merits rather than abandon the litigation — though the case must still survive service, answer, and any Rule 12 challenges in the new court.
Claims intact, new forumBala Bangles faces merits battle in its home district
The transfer to the Eastern District — where the Kislevitzes reside in Brooklyn — may actually benefit Bala Bangles by placing proceedings in a more natural home forum. No answer or response has been filed by Bala Bangles in the public SDNY record, meaning the patent holder has yet to assert its position on validity or infringement. The EDNY proceedings will be the first real battleground for USD888167S, and Bala Bangles retains all available defenses.
Merits yet to be testedVenue error delays — but does not derail — the IP dispute
For fitness accessory manufacturers and competitors operating in the weighted exercise band space, this transfer means the enforceability of USD888167S remains entirely live. The six-day SDNY episode creates no precedent on the underlying patent. Companies importing or selling competing weighted band products should monitor the EDNY docket closely, as a ruling on invalidity or non-infringement could have sector-wide implications for design patent scope in this product category.
Patent dispute continuesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese electronics manufacturer — holder of declaratory judgment claims against USD888167SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bala Bangles, Inc. | Company | Bala Bangles, Inc. — California fitness brand, holder of weighted exercise band design patent USD888167SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing Xiamen Tingken Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory H. Woods | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order is procedural, not substantive — Judge Woods made no finding on the merits of Tingken’s non-infringement or invalidity claims, nor on Bala Bangles’ patent rights. The ruling turns entirely on the absence of district-level venue facts under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Critically, the case was transferred rather than dismissed, meaning all claims filed on June 19, 2025 carry forward to the Eastern District of New York. Both parties retain their full legal positions; the transfer order simply re-routes the dispute to the correct forum.
USD888167S — Weighted Exercise Band Design Patent
Patent USD888167S (application number US29/641509) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a weighted exercise band — the signature product of Bala Bangles, Inc. Design patents cover the non-functional, aesthetic elements of a product’s form, meaning infringement analysis turns on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall visual impression. The corrected application number suggests a continuation or correction filing history that may be relevant to claim scope.
Bala Bangles has built significant brand equity around its weighted band product, and USD888167S represents a design-rights moat against look-alike competitors. For Chinese manufacturers exporting visually similar fitness accessories to the U.S. market, this patent creates meaningful infringement risk — particularly as design patent enforcement against imported goods has intensified. The EDNY proceedings will be the first judicial test of the patent’s scope, and any invalidity or non-infringement ruling could open the market to competing designs.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD888167S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing weighted exercise bands or similar wrist and ankle fitness accessories in the U.S. market should assess exposure against USD888167S. The Bala Bangles design is commercially prominent, and this litigation confirms the patent is being actively asserted. The ornamental scope of design patents can be broader than expected — an FTO is essential before launch or scale-up of competing products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map USD888167S’s visual claim scope against your specific product design, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and monitor the EDNY docket for claim construction developments. Running a design patent FTO early — before retail distribution agreements are signed — avoids the costly scenario Xiamen Tingken now faces.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0888167S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent DJ Actions in Federal Courts
Explore declaratory judgment actions challenging fitness accessory and wearable design patents in U.S. district courts, including EDNY and SDNY.
What this case signals for the fitness accessories IP landscape
A rapid venue transfer rarely ends IP disputes — it resets them. The substantive fight over USD888167S is just beginning.
Venue selection in cross-border DJ actions demands rigorous pre-filing analysis
Xiamen Tingken’s Complaint relied on conclusory venue allegations — that retailers selling Bala Bangles products in New York sufficed to establish an SDNY presence. Judge Woods rejected this within days. Companies filing declaratory judgment actions from overseas must map defendant contacts to the specific district before filing, not just the state.
Design patent USD888167S remains fully enforceable pending EDNY resolution
The transfer resolves nothing on the merits. Bala Bangles’ design patent covering the weighted exercise band has not been invalidated, and no non-infringement finding has been made. Competitors and importers in this product category should treat the patent as fully active and consider FTO analysis against the EDNY docket timeline.
Xiamen v Bala — key questions answered
The court found that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York. The individual defendants, Natalie and Maximilian Kislevitz, reside in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District, not the Southern District. The Complaint offered no sufficient factual basis for Bala Bangles having an established place of business in SDNY. Judge Woods transferred the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) on June 25, 2025, six days after filing.
USD888167S is a U.S. design patent held by Bala Bangles, Inc., with corrected application number US29/641509. It protects the ornamental design of a weighted exercise band — the company’s flagship fitness accessory product. Design patents protect visual appearance rather than functional features, so infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would consider the accused product substantially similar in overall appearance.
Tingken’s Complaint, filed June 19, 2025, sought declarations that its products do not infringe USD888167S and that the patent is invalid. It also alleged violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 — a consumer protection and unfair competition statute — and a claim for tortious interference, suggesting Bala Bangles may have interfered with Tingken’s commercial relationships.
No. The transfer order is purely procedural and makes no ruling on the merits of either party’s position. USD888167S remains a valid, enforceable design patent. No invalidity finding, non-infringement determination, or injunction has been issued. All substantive claims now proceed in the Eastern District of New York.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a case filed in the wrong district is transferred to a district where it could have been properly brought. The transfer preserves all claims and the original filing date — the case is not dismissed. In this case, Tingken’s non-infringement, invalidity, GBL § 349, and tortious interference claims all carry forward to the Eastern District of New York, where proceedings will continue from where the SDNY left off.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.