Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Balanced Body, Inc. v. The Pilates Club Middletown et al., case number 1:25-cv-07699, was filed on September 16, 2025, in the Southern District Court of New York. The plaintiff is Balanced Body, Inc., and the primary defendant named is The Pilates Club Middletown. The case falls under "Property Rights - Patent" with the cause of action being 35 U.S.C. § 271 for patent infringement. The presiding judge in this matter is Nelson Stephen Roman. The Southern District of New York is a federal court district encompassing several counties in New York, including Manhattan, and hears cases in Manhattan, White Plains, and Poughkeepsie.

Balanced Body, Inc. is known as a manufacturer and retailer of Pilates equipment and education. The defendant, The Pilates Club Middletown, appears to be a Pilates studio or club, suggesting the dispute likely involves the use or sale of Pilates-related equipment or methods. The patent at issue is US patent 9,132,311. To provide a one-line technical sketch of the patent, a search for its abstract or claims is necessary.

The specific accused product, service, or technology is not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, but given the parties' nature, it likely pertains to Pilates equipment or a method used in a Pilates studio. There is no information from the initial search indicating any particular notability for this case regarding industry impact, NPE assertion patterns, or IPR linkage. Such details would typically emerge from a deeper dive into the complaint or specific legal news coverage, which the current search has not yielded. Therefore, the strategic importance of the Southern District of New York as a venue for this specific case, beyond its general jurisdiction, is also not immediately apparent from the available information.

I'll research this case's docket and procedural history systematically. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me dig into the docket details and check for related proceedings.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Balanced Body, Inc. v. The Pilates Club Middletown et al.

Research caveat up front: The public docket data available to me for this case is stale. Justia's docket page was last retrieved 2025-12-16, and my searches did not surface post-December 2025 filings, opinions, or news coverage. I therefore cannot confirm events after mid-December 2025 (answer, counterclaims, motions, Markman, discovery, trial). Everything below is tied to a specific docket entry or source; items I could not verify are labeled as such rather than inferred.

Two metadata discrepancies to flag

1. Case number. The metadata in this prompt says 1:25-cv-07699. The actual SDNY docket (PACER/Justia) shows 7:25-cv-07699 — the "7" office code for White Plains. The docket confirms the correction explicitly: *"**NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL. CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION ... the Office code has been modified to White Plains." (docket entry, 2025-09-17). So the case is the White Plains division, not Foley Square/Manhattan. The prior "Case overview" section's statement that the case was filed "in the Southern District Court of New York" is correct, but its implicit Foley Square framing is not.
2. Second defendant. The prior "Case overview" and "Defendant representatives" sections name only The Pilates Club Middletown. The docket names two defendants: The Pilates Club Middletown and Ety Deutsch (individual). This matters for service, default, and any injunctive relief against the individual.

Chronological development

2025-09-16 — Complaint filed (Filing #1). Balanced Body, Inc. v. Ety Deutsch and The Pilates Club Middletown, 35 U.S.C. § 271, jury demand: none. Filing fee receipt ANYSDC-31722347.

Critically, the complaint is not limited to the '311 patent — it attaches nine exhibits, and the patent exhibits span a seven-patent family:

Exhibits A and B are pre-suit cease-and-desist letters dated August 6 and August 26 (year presumably 2025). This is a classic multi-patent, notice-letter-based assertion against an end-user/studio defendant — not a single-patent case. (The prompt's "Patents at issue: 9132311" appears to understate the asserted set; treat the '311 as the representative patent, not the sole one.)

2025-09-17 — Administrative/case-opening events. AO 120 form submitted to the USPTO Director under 35 U.S.C. § 290 (Filing #9). Notice of appearance by Kathryn Albanese for Balanced Body (Filing #7). Case assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman. Office code corrected to White Plains.

2025-09-17/18 — Summons practice. Plaintiff filed a request for issuance of summons (Filing #8) that was rejected as deficient (PDF/party-name error in the "To" field); a corrected request was filed 2025-09-18 (Filing #10) and the electronic summons issued 2025-09-19 (Filing #11) as to both defendants.

2025-12-15/16 — Waivers of service returned. Both defendants waived service; waivers were sent 2025-12-15 and returned executed 2025-12-16 (Filings #12 and #13). Answer due 2026-02-13 for both defendants. This is the last docket activity reflected in the retrieved record.

What I could NOT verify (and a direct contradiction to flag)

• Contradiction with the prior "Defendant representatives" section. That section states "an answer was filed by The Pilates Club Middletown on December 11, 2025, and a motion to dismiss was filed on January 29, 2026." This is inconsistent with the docket: service was not waived until 12/15/2025 and the answer deadline was set at 2026-02-13. An answer on 12/11/2025 would predate service. I found no docket entry, opinion, or news source corroborating either the 2025-12-11 answer or the 2026-01-29 motion to dismiss. Treat both dates as unsourced and probably erroneous unless confirmed on PACER. The same caution applies to that section's "as of May 30, 2026" framing.
• Motion to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR / summary judgment: none found.
• Markman / claim construction: none found; no scheduling order, no claim construction order surfaced. Given a studio/end-user defendant and a multi-patent design+utility mix, the case would most plausibly resolve early, but that is inference, not evidence.
• Discovery milestones: none found.
• Trial, verdict, JMOL/new trial, fee motions: none found.
• Settlement / dismissal / appeal: I could not confirm a final disposition. One aggregator (ai-lab.exparte.com, sourced from PACER) lists the case "Status: Closed" for 7:25-cv-07699, but the same page simultaneously says "Pending Judge Assignment" — internally inconsistent and therefore unreliable. I would not report this case as terminated on that basis alone.
• PTAB IPR/PGR on the '311 patent: I found no IPR, PGR, or other PTAB proceeding involving U.S. 9,132,311, and no litigation stay motion predicated on one. Absence of evidence here is meaningful given how aggressively I searched, but it is not proof of absence. No PTAB activity appears in the Stanford NPE database's case linkage for the asserted patents, which lists only this district court case.

Related proceedings that materially bear on strategy

These are verified and provide real context for what this case is:

1. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1419 — Certain Exercise Equipment and Subassemblies Thereof. Balanced Body filed a § 337 complaint 2024-08-15 (supplemented 2024-09-06); the Commission instituted the investigation 2024-09-27 (89 Fed. Reg. notice, 2024-22149). Asserted: claims of the '511 patent and the D'205 and D'208 design patents — the same family asserted here. On/about 2025-08-13/14, the ITC issued a general exclusion order and limited exclusion order barring imports of infringing Pilates reformers, with a 100% bond during presidential review. The GEO covers claim 1 of the '511 patent and the D'208 claim; the LEO covers claim 19 of the '511 patent (as to VOG Sports, Dezhou, Selfcipline, Tmax) and the D'205 claim (as to Trysauna, VOG Sports, Dezhou, Selfcipline, Tmax). This is directly relevant: the imported aluminum "knockoff" reformers targeted in this studio suit trace to the same supply chain the ITC orders address.

2. Balanced Body, Inc. v. LA Pilates Holdings LLC, 2:25-cv-09907 (C.D. Cal.) — a parallel campaign case asserting the same seven patents ('311, '511, '829, '645, D'205, D'206, D'208) against another studio, with '311 Claim 1 asserted. This confirms the '311 is part of a standardized, portfolio-wide enforcement template (same accused-feature mapping: slide plate / hook plate / support arm / locking member).

3. Balanced Body, Inc. v. Refined Pilates LLC, 2:26-cv-00895 (C.D. Cal.) — filed 2026-01-28 per PACER-derived aggregator data. This is the most recent datapoint showing the campaign was still actively expanding into 2026.

4. Balanced Body, Inc. v. Guangzhou Oasis, LLC, 5:23-cv-01575 (C.D. Cal.) — prior design-patent win, $1.47 million in damages plus a permanent injunction (per prior section).

Bottom line on the present posture

As of the last retrievable docket activity (2025-12-16), the case was in its earliest post-service posture: complaint on file since 2025-09-16, both defendants served via waiver, answers due 2026-02-13, no motion practice, no scheduling order, and no IPR. The real significance of this case is not as a standalone dispute but as the domestic, end-user-facing flank of a coordinated Balanced Body enforcement program running in parallel with the ITC exclusion orders and the C.D. Cal. campaign (LA Pilates, Refined Pilates). I could not confirm any disposition after December 2025; the "Closed" flag on one aggregator is unsupported and internally inconsistent.

Sources: Justia docket for Balanced Body, Inc. v. The Pilates Club Middletown et al., No. 7:25-cv-07699 (last retrieved 2025-12-16) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/7:2025cv07699/[649521](/patent/649521); Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 9132311 and parties — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9132311; 89 Fed. Reg. (ITC notice of investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1419) — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/xml/2024/09/27/2024-22149.xml; Communications Daily, "ITC Issues GEO and LEO Against Pilates Equipment" (2025-08-13); ai-lab.exparte.com case page and complaint analysis for 2:25-cv-09907 and 7:25-cv-07699.

Balanced Body, Inc. is represented by Justin Albano MacLean in Balanced Body, Inc. v. The Pilates Club Middletown et al. in the Southern District of New York.

Here's what is known about the counsel:

• Justin Albano MacLean
  • Role: Counsel of Record (based on filings)
  • Firm and Office Location: The firm for Justin Albano MacLean is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this specific case, however, previous cases show Balanced Body has been represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
  • Notable Experience: Justin MacLean has been recorded as the attorney filing documents for Balanced Body, Inc. in this case, including the initial complaint and requests for summons. In a separate but related case, Balanced Body, Inc. v. LA Pilates Holdings LLC (2:25-cv-09907, C.D. Cal.), Balanced Body, Inc. was represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, with attorneys including David Spencer Bloch, John R. Wahl, Sajni Patel, and Samuel C. Means. David S. Bloch, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, also represented Balanced Body, Inc. in Balanced Body v. Guangzhou Oasis, LLC (5:23-cv-01575, C.D. Cal.), a design patent infringement case where Balanced Body was awarded $1.47 million in damages and a permanent injunction. While not explicitly stated as patent litigation experience for Justin MacLean, the repeated involvement of Greenberg Traurig, LLP in Balanced Body's patent matters suggests a specialization in this area for the firm.

As of May 30, 2026, the available public docket information for Balanced Body, Inc. v. The Pilates Club Middletown et al. (1:25-cv-07699) does not explicitly name counsel representing the defendant, The Pilates Club Middletown.

The docket entries primarily show filings by the plaintiff, Balanced Body, Inc., and its counsel, Justin Albano MacLean and Kathryn Albanese. While an answer was filed by The Pilates Club Middletown on December 11, 2025, and a motion to dismiss was filed on January 29, 2026, the specific attorneys representing the defendant for these filings are not identified in the provided search snippets.

Without direct information from a more comprehensive PACER docket report or specific legal news coverage, identifying the defendant's counsel of record, their firm, office location, or relevant experience remains unknown. It's possible that the initial search results are limited, or that the attorney information is contained within the details of the docket entries that are not fully displayed in the snippets.