DCT

1:22-cv-01296

Wahoo Fitness LLC v. JetBlack Cycling Pty Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01296, D. Del., 10/03/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States, and thus may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Volt smart indoor bicycle trainer infringes three patents related to the mechanical design and software control systems of such trainers.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the market for smart indoor bicycle trainers, which allow cyclists to use their own bicycles for interactive, resistance-controlled indoor workouts.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice of the asserted patents to the public, including Defendant, by listing them on its corporate website.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-08-27 Earliest Priority Date for ’222, ’290, and ’542 Patents
2018-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,046,222 Issues
2021-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,933,290 Issues
Circa 2021 Defendant allegedly begins selling Volt trainer in Australia
2021-08-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,090,542 Issues
2022-08 Defendant announces new version of Volt trainer
2022-10-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,046,222, System and Method for Controlling a Bicycle Trainer, issued August 14, 2018 (’222 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in conventional bicycle trainers, including their inability to provide consistent workouts, their operation as "closed platforms" that cannot connect with peripheral devices, and a lack of wireless control, resulting in an unrealistic ride feel (Compl. ¶47; ’222 Patent, col. 2:10-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system where a computing device, such as a smartphone, wirelessly connects to the bicycle trainer to control its resistance. The system receives a "training mode" and at least one variable (e.g., grade, wind resistance) via an application programming interface (API), uses those inputs to determine a "power set point," and then controls a magnetic brake assembly to achieve that target power output, thereby simulating a specific riding condition (’222 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-18).
  • Technical Importance: This system architecture enabled the creation of an open-platform ecosystem, allowing third-party software developers to create applications that could control the trainer, significantly expanding its functionality beyond what a single manufacturer could provide (’222 Patent, col. 2:36-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • An exercise device with a frame, a flywheel assembly, a magnetic brake assembly, and a memory with computer-executable instructions.
    • At least one processor that executes instructions to:
      • wirelessly connect to a computing device.
      • wirelessly receive a training mode from the computing device.
      • wirelessly receive at least one variable for determining a power set point, formatted according to an application programming interface.
      • determine the power set point responsive to the training mode and the variable.
      • control the magnetic brake assembly responsive to the power set point.

U.S. Patent No. 10,933,290, Bicycle Trainer, issued March 2, 2021 (’290 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses mechanical limitations of prior art trainers, such as the difficulty of leveling the trainer on uneven surfaces, the lack of vertical height adjustment, and incompatibility with bicycles having different wheel sizes or axle standards (’290 Patent, col. 1:42-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a bicycle trainer with a specific mechanical configuration. Key features include a main frame that pivots for height adjustment, foldable legs for portability, and a flywheel assembly where the magnetic brake is rotationally fixed by a "tubular member," allowing a separate flywheel member to spin around a common axis. This structure is designed to be stable, adjustable, and compatible with various bicycle types (’290 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-10; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a stable and highly adjustable mechanical platform that allows a user to mount different types of bicycles (e.g., road, mountain) securely and level, enhancing the utility and realism of indoor training (’290 Patent, col. 2:20-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A bicycle trainer with a frame assembly supporting an axle for a bicycle with its rear wheel removed.
    • A flywheel assembly with a magnetic brake assembly and a flywheel member.
    • The magnetic brake assembly is rotationally fixed and coupled with a "tubular member coaxial with the flywheel axle."
    • The flywheel member is coupled with the axle and spins relative to the fixed magnetic brake assembly when a rider pedals.

U.S. Patent No. 11,090,542, System and Method for Controlling a Bicycle Trainer, issued August 17, 2021 (’542 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

Similar to the ’222 Patent, the ’542 Patent is directed to a system and method for controlling an exercise device. The invention involves a processor that executes instructions to wirelessly connect to a computing device, receive a training mode and variables, determine a power set point based on those inputs, and control a magnetic brake assembly to simulate desired riding conditions (’542 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Volt trainer's ability to be controlled by external software applications via wireless communication to vary its resistance infringes the ’542 Patent (Compl. ¶¶62-63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the JetBlack "Volt" Smart Trainer (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Volt as a smart indoor cycle trainer that uses an "Electromagnetic braking system" to provide resistance (Compl. ¶32). It is designed to "seamlessly connect with most popular training platforms" via wireless protocols, including "Bluetooth FTMS and ANT+ FEC" (Compl. ¶¶31-32). The complaint includes a marketing image of the Volt trainer taken from Defendant's website (Compl. ¶31, p. 8). The complaint alleges the Volt is "identical, in all material respects, to the KICKR CORE," a product sold by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶25). It further notes a price point of $499.00 for a newer version of the Volt announced in August 2022 (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references non-limiting claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 5, 6, and 7) that were not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶¶49, 56, 63). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’222 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Volt directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’222 Patent (Compl. ¶49). The infringement theory is based on the Volt's operation as a "smart" trainer. The complaint asserts that the Volt has made, used, and sold bicycle training apparatuses that practice at least one claim (Compl. ¶48). The theory suggests the Volt embodies the claimed exercise device by having a processor and memory, connecting wirelessly to computing devices running training applications (Compl. ¶¶31-32), receiving commands (i.e., "training mode" and "variables") from those applications, and controlling its electromagnetic brake to provide resistance in response, thereby determining and acting upon a "power set point" as claimed.

’290 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Volt directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’290 Patent, which is directed to the trainer's mechanical structure (Compl. ¶56). The core of this allegation is the assertion that the Volt is a "copy" of Wahoo's KICKR CORE product, which Plaintiff claims practices the ’290 Patent (Compl. ¶¶25, 39). The infringement theory is that the Volt’s physical construction—a frame supporting a flywheel and magnetic brake for use with a bicycle's rear wheel removed—structurally corresponds to the specific arrangement recited in the claims, including the claimed relationship between the fixed magnetic brake and the spinning flywheel member (Compl. ¶53).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’222 Patent, a potential point of dispute may be whether the Volt's use of standard, public wireless protocols like ANT+ and Bluetooth FTMS constitutes receiving a variable "formatted according to an application programming interface" as the claim requires (’222 Patent, col. 37:21-23). The interpretation of "application programming interface" could be critical.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’290 Patent, the central question appears to be factual and structural. Since infringement depends on the physical construction, the case may turn on whether the internal assembly of the Volt includes a "tubular member coaxial with the flywheel axle" that performs the claimed function of rotationally fixing the magnetic brake assembly (’290 Patent, col. 13:3-5). This raises the question of what evidence will show the internal structure of the accused device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’222 Patent: "power set point"

  • Context and Importance: This term represents the target power output that the trainer's control system seeks to replicate. The definition is central to infringement, as the analysis will depend on whether the Volt's control logic determines and uses such a value in response to inputs from a training application.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the power set point can be calculated dynamically by a "physics engine" based on multiple variables, such as speed, grade, and wind, suggesting it is a computed, fluctuating target (’222 Patent, col. 25:44-48).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes an "ergometer mode" where the trainer maintains a specific "target power" set by the user, suggesting the term could also cover a simple, fixed wattage value communicated from an app (’222 Patent, col. 23:3-4).

Term from the ’290 Patent: "tubular member"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes a key structural component that allegedly allows the magnetic brake to remain stationary while the flywheel spins around the same axle. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of this mechanical patent will likely depend on whether the Volt contains a structure that meets this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and the specification does not appear to limit it to a specific material or precise geometry, stating only that it is "coaxial with the flywheel axle" and that the magnetic brake assembly is "operably coupled" with it (’290 Patent, col. 13:3-5; col. 13:14-16). This may support a construction covering any sleeve-like structure performing this function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures illustrate a specific component configuration (e.g., ’290 Patent, Fig. 9A). A defendant could argue that the term should be construed more narrowly in light of the depicted embodiments, potentially limiting its scope to a structure that is visually and functionally consistent with what is shown.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It does, however, allege constructive notice by stating that the patents-in-suit are listed on Plaintiff's public-facing patent marking website (Compl. ¶¶36, 40, 44). The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which relates to attorney's fees (Compl. p. 17).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to two central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: to what extent does the internal mechanical architecture of the JetBlack Volt, particularly its flywheel and magnetic brake mounting system, align with the specific physical arrangement required by the claims of the ’290 patent, which the complaint alleges it directly copies?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of system-level equivalence: does the Volt’s control system, which communicates with third-party applications over standard wireless protocols, operate in a way that practices the specific, multi-step method of receiving a "training mode" and "variables," determining a "power set point," and controlling a brake as claimed in the ’222 and ’542 patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation?