DCT

2:18-cv-00390

Peloton Interactive Inc v. Flywheel Sports Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00390, E.D. Tex., 06/19/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Flywheel maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a fitness studio in Plano, Texas, from which it has allegedly promoted, offered for sale, and sold the accused product.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “FLY Anywhere” at-home exercise bike and associated services infringe four U.S. patents related to systems and methods for delivering interactive, networked fitness classes.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates within the connected fitness market, which integrates physical exercise equipment with streamed digital content and networked social features to replicate a group class experience for remote users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,174,085 and 9,233,276, as well as the application that would issue as U.S. Patent No. 9,861,855, via a letter dated October 24, 2017. The complaint further alleges that Defendant had notice of the application that would issue as U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315 through its counsel’s involvement in related proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-07-31 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2014-01-XX Peloton delivers its first bikes to customers
2015-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,174,085 issues
2016-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,233,276 issues
2017-02-XX Flywheel investor Michael Milken allegedly meets with Peloton CEO to obtain strategic information
2017-05-XX Flywheel announces development of the FLY Anywhere bike
2017-10-24 Peloton sends notice letter to Flywheel regarding the ’085, ’276, and future ’855 Patents
2017-11-XX Flywheel launches the FLY Anywhere bike
2018-01-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,861,855 issues
2018-11-15 Flywheel counsel allegedly identifies application for future ’315 Patent in a PTAB matter
2019-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315 issues
2019-06-19 Second Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,174,085 - "Exercise System and Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,174,085, "Exercise System and Method," issued November 3, 2015.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes two primary problems: (1) existing home and gym-based exercise systems lack features that allow users to compete with each other or that "gamify" exercise activities, leading to boredom; and (2) instructor-led classes at boutique studios, while engaging, are inconveniently tied to specific times and locations and are often expensive or sold-out (’085 Patent, col. 1:37-64).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a networked exercise system that streams live or on-demand classes to a user on a stationary bike equipped with a display screen. The system detects performance metrics from the user's bike (e.g., speed, power) and displays them alongside performance metrics from other remote users, enabling real-time comparison and competition, thereby aiming to combine the convenience of at-home exercise with the motivation of a group class (’085 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-28).
    • Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a new category of fitness equipment by integrating video streaming, social networking, and real-time performance data tracking into a single, cohesive user experience (’085 Patent, col. 1:59-64).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’085 Patent without specifying particular claims (Compl. ¶72). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • Providing information about available live and archived cycling classes on a display screen.
    • Receiving a user's selection of a class.
    • Outputting digital video and audio content for the selected class.
    • Detecting performance parameters from the user's stationary bike at a particular point in the class.
    • Displaying at least one of the user's performance parameters.
    • Displaying performance parameters from a second user on a second stationary bike at a second location.
    • Presenting the parameters from the first and second user "at the same point in the selected cycling class" for comparison.

U.S. Patent No. 9,233,276 - "Exercise System and Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,233,276, "Exercise System and Method," issued January 12, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The ’276 Patent, a continuation of the application that led to the ’085 Patent, addresses the same problems of user boredom with solo at-home exercise and the logistical constraints of in-person studio classes (’276 Patent, col. 1:31-58).
    • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively similar to that described in the ’085 Patent: a networked exercise system that streams classes to a user and enables performance comparison with other remote users. The claims, however, are directed toward a system-level implementation involving comparisons with a plurality of other riders, rather than just a single "second user" (’276 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-67).
    • Technical Importance: This patent extends the inventive concept to a broader, multi-user competitive environment, which is central to the "leaderboard" feature that simulates a large group class (’276 Patent, col. 8:38-54).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’276 Patent without specification (Compl. ¶83). Independent claim 1 is representative and is substantively similar to claim 1 of the ’085 patent, with a key distinction in the final two elements:
    • Detecting performance parameters from the user's stationary bike.
    • Displaying at least one of the user's performance parameters.
    • Displaying performance parameters from each of a plurality of other stationary bikes at a plurality of other locations.
    • Presenting the parameters from the first user and the plurality of other users "at the same point in the selected cycling class" for comparison.

U.S. Patent No. 9,861,855 - "Exercise System and Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,861,855, "Exercise System and Method," issued January 9, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’855 Patent addresses the same technical problem of making at-home exercise more engaging. Its claims are directed to a method of displaying live and archived classes where performance parameters of a first user are presented for comparison against those of a second user at the same points in the selected class (’855 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’855 Patent (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the FLY Anywhere bike's system for streaming classes and displaying a comparative leaderboard infringes the ’855 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 67).

U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315 - "Exercise System and Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,322,315, "Exercise System and Method," issued June 18, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’315 Patent is also a continuation in the same family and targets the same technical problem. Its claims describe a method for displaying classes and performance data, focusing on the comparison of a first user's performance parameters against those from a plurality of other users at other locations, similar to the concept in the ’276 Patent (’315 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’315 Patent (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the FLY Anywhere bike's functionality for streaming classes and enabling multi-rider performance comparison via a leaderboard infringes the ’315 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the “FLY Anywhere” at-home exercise bike and its associated services (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the FLY Anywhere bike is a direct competitor to the Peloton Bike that allows riders to access live and archived cycling classes from home (Compl. ¶61). Its key accused functionalities include tracking a user's performance metrics and displaying those metrics on a graphical user interface for comparison against the performance of other remote riders participating in the same class (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 49). A screenshot in the complaint depicts the FLY Anywhere user interface, showing a leaderboard on the right side of the screen with ranked users, alongside the rider's own performance data at the bottom (Compl. p. 18, "Above: Images of the FLY Anywhere bike and its copycat leaderboard."). The complaint characterizes the product as a "copycat" of the Peloton Bike experience designed to capture market share from Peloton (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,174,085 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for displaying live and archived cycling classes, in various embodiments comprising displaying information about available live and archived cycling classes that can be accessed by a first user using a first stationary bike... The complaint alleges that the FLY Anywhere system displays a menu of available live and on-demand classes for the user to select. (Compl. ¶5, 49). ¶5, 49 col. 2:5-12
receiving from the first user a selection of one of the available live or archived cycling classes... The FLY Anywhere system allegedly receives a user's selection of a class through its touchscreen interface. (Compl. ¶5). ¶5 col. 2:12-14
outputting digital video and audio content comprising the selected cycling class at the first location to the first user... The FLY Anywhere bike allegedly streams video of an instructor and audio content for the selected class to the user. (Compl. ¶49). ¶49 col. 2:14-17
detecting a plurality of performance parameters from the first stationary bike at the first location at a particular point in the selected cycling class... The complaint alleges the FLY Anywhere bike uses sensors to track a remote rider's performance. (Compl. ¶49). ¶49 col. 2:17-20
displaying at least one of the plurality of performance parameters detected from the first stationary bike... The FLY Anywhere bike allegedly displays the user's own ride metrics on its graphical user interface. (Compl. ¶5). ¶5 col. 2:20-23
and displaying at least one of a plurality of performance parameters from a second stationary bike at a second location on the display screen at the first location... The FLY Anywhere bike's "copycat leaderboard" allegedly displays the performance metrics of other remote riders. (Compl. ¶5, p. 18). ¶5, p. 18 col. 2:23-26
such that at least one of the performance parameters from the first stationary bike... and at least one of the performance parameters from the second stationary bike at the same point... are presented for comparison... The complaint alleges the FLY Anywhere system compares the remote rider's performance against the performance of other remote riders. (Compl. ¶49). ¶49 col. 2:26-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question may be how the accused system ensures that performance parameters from different users are compared "at the same point in the selected cycling class." This suggests a need for evidence of a data synchronization method that aligns user performance data to a common class timeline, especially for on-demand classes where users start at different times.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of whether the functionality of displaying a ranked list of multiple users (a leaderboard) meets the more specific limitation of displaying parameters "from a second stationary bike," as recited in this claim, or if it more closely aligns with claims in other asserted patents that recite a "plurality" of other users.

U.S. Patent No. 9,233,276 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for displaying live and archived cycling classes comprising... displaying at least one of a plurality of performance parameters from each of a plurality of other stationary bikes at a plurality of other locations on the display screen at the first location... The FLY Anywhere bike's leaderboard allegedly displays performance metrics from multiple other remote riders who are taking or have taken the same class. (Compl. ¶5, p. 18). ¶5, p. 18 col. 2:54-60
such that at least one of the performance parameters from the first stationary bike... and at least one of the performance parameters from the plurality of other stationary bikes at the same point... are presented for comparison... The complaint alleges the FLY Anywhere system synchronizes and compares the metrics of remote users, displaying their relative performance ranks. (Compl. ¶5, 61). ¶5, 61 col. 2:60-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: This claim requires displaying parameters from "each of a plurality of other stationary bikes." A potential point of contention could be the definition of "plurality" and whether the accused leaderboard displays data from "each" bike in a way that satisfies the claim language, or merely a subset. The interpretation of "each" could be pivotal.
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges infringement in broad terms. A key question for the court will be what specific evidence demonstrates that the accused system performs every step of the claimed method, particularly the detection, transmission, synchronization, and comparative display of data from a plurality of distinct remote users.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "at the same point in the selected cycling class"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the temporal relationship required for a valid performance comparison between remote users. Its construction will determine the necessary level of technical synchronization. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simply displaying asynchronous lists of high scores; it implies a real-time or time-aligned competitive feature.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify a particular technical method for achieving this alignment, which could support a construction that covers any system that associates user performance data with a common class timeline, regardless of the underlying mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment using "go" and "stop" signals to define the comparison period for a class, which allows for data to be "synched correctly" even if users start at different times (’085 Patent, col. 13:59-62; col. 14:1-2). This could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a defined, synchronized start-and-stop data comparison window.

  • The Term: "performance parameters"

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines the types of data the claimed system must be able to detect and display. A narrow definition could allow a defendant to argue that its system tracks different, non-infringing types of data.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and the claims do not limit it to specific examples. This may support a broad construction covering any metric reflecting a user's exercise effort or output, such as speed, distance, or a proprietary score.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists examples, stating that "performance parameters include pedal cadence, power output, or heartrate" (’085 Patent, col. 2:36-38). This explicit enumeration could be used to argue that the term should be limited to these specific, objective metrics of cycling performance.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Flywheel "advertises to, sells to, encourages, and instructs third parties, including Flywheel customers, to practice every step of the methods claimed" in the patents (Compl. ¶73, 84). The basis for this allegation appears to be Flywheel's general marketing and instructions for using the FLY Anywhere bike.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement. It alleges pre-suit knowledge based on a notice letter sent on October 24, 2017, more than a year before the suit and prior to the launch of the accused product (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 75). The willfulness claim is further supported by allegations that a major Flywheel investor, Michael Milken, obtained confidential information about Peloton's technology and business strategy in February 2017 while posing as a potential Peloton investor, and that this information was provided to Flywheel to aid the development of its competing product (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 55-60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and differentiation: Given the subtle but potentially significant differences across the asserted patents (e.g., comparing to "a second" user vs. "a plurality" of users), a key question will be whether the accused FLY Anywhere leaderboard and its display logic fall within the scope of any single asserted claim, or if there are material differences in its operation that place it outside the patents' boundaries.
  • A second central question will be one of technical proof and synchronization: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused system not only displays a list of other riders but specifically "presents for comparison" performance data that is synchronized "at the same point in the selected cycling class"? The case may turn on the technical evidence of how, or if, Flywheel's backend servers align performance data from users who may start on-demand classes at different times.
  • Finally, a major factual question will be one of intent and copying: Beyond the technical infringement analysis, the court will face the question of whether Flywheel’s conduct, particularly the alleged corporate espionage by its investor, rises to the level of egregious behavior required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages. The evidence surrounding the interactions between Peloton's CEO and the Flywheel investor will be a significant focus.