DCT

1:03-cv-00147

ICON Health & Fitnes v. Unisen

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:03-cv-00147, D. Utah, 12/08/2003
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant does business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fitness equipment infringes two patents related to exercise machine control systems, one covering real-time biological feedback and another covering remote and programmable control.
  • Technical Context: The patents address electronic control systems for exercise equipment, such as treadmills and stationary cycles, which allow for dynamic adjustment of workout difficulty and user feedback.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events relevant to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1989-02-03 U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120 Priority Date
1991-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 5,645,509 Priority Date
1992-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120 Issues
1997-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 5,645,509 Issues
2003-12-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120 - “Exercise Machine Control System” (Issued Apr. 14, 1992)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that while exercise machines had ways to adjust resistance, a control system providing quantitative, real-time feedback to the user was not available, preventing users from easily and precisely regulating their workout based on biological response (’120 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a control system for an exercise machine that combines a user-operated control (e.g., a knob) for adjusting exercise resistance with a feedback system. This feedback system uses a pulse detector to gather biological data from the user, a conversion means to process that data into metrics like calorie burn, and a display to show this information in real time, allowing the user to "extemporaneously devise and operate an exercise program" (’120 Patent, col. 1:43-col. 2:5; col. 4:5-8).
  • Technical Importance: The system aimed to empower users to quantitatively manage their exercise intensity by directly observing the physiological effects of their adjustments in real time (’120 Patent, col. 2:25-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of the "ICON patents" generally (Compl. ¶14). Independent claims 1 (an apparatus claim) and 8 (a method claim) are representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • "control means" for extemporaneous manual operation by the user to set resistance.
    • "indication means" positioned proximate the control means to show its relative selection.
    • "pulse detection means" to supply a pulse signal from the user.
    • "conversion means" to receive the pulse signal and convert it into selected biological display data.
    • "display means" to display the biological data in real time for observation by the user.

U.S. Patent No. 5,645,509 - “Remote Exercise Control System” (Issued Jul. 8, 1997)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for more advanced, programmable exercise consoles that could allow users to select from a variety of workout programs, modify them, and even interact with a remote advisor, moving beyond the limitations of single-unit consoles with fixed functions (’509 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a modular exercise control system where a control console can receive "external control signals" from a remote source, such as a computer connected via telephone lines or a VCR playing a tape with encoded exercise data (’509 Patent, Abstract). These external signals can select, modify, or supply entire exercise programs, controlling the exercise machine’s speed and resistance over pre-defined time segments (’509 Patent, col. 2:38-44; col. 15:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enabled interactive and pre-programmed workouts on home equipment, introducing the concept of remotely delivered or media-based fitness coaching (’509 Patent, col. 1:57-col. 2:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶14). Independent claims 1 and 15 (system claims) and 11 (an apparatus claim) are representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • "sensing means" for sensing movement of the moveable element and providing movement signals.
    • "first and second ports" for connecting a communications device, with the first port being remote from the exercise machine.
    • "control means" local to the machine for receiving movement signals and providing them to the second port.
    • "evaluation means" remote from the machine for receiving the movement signals via the communications device and providing "external control signals" back.
    • The control means receives the external control signals and provides "internal control signals" to regulate the machine's movement.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "products" that Star Trac has imported, made, sold, or offered for sale (Compl. ¶14).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges that ICON and Star Trac are "competitors in the market for fitness equipment" (Compl. ¶4). The accused instrumentalities are therefore alleged to be exercise equipment.
    • No specific functionality of any Star Trac product is described in the complaint. The allegations are limited to the assertion that Star Trac's products fall "within the scope of the claims of the ICON patents" (Compl. ¶14).
    • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement. It makes only a conclusory allegation that Defendant's unspecified "products" infringe unspecified claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14). No claim chart is provided or referenced, and no specific product features are mapped to any claim elements.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate, through discovery, that any specific Star Trac product incorporates the structures required by the asserted claims. For the ’120 Patent, this would involve identifying the "pulse detection means" and "conversion means." For the ’509 Patent, a key factual question will be whether any accused product contains a "port" and associated circuitry for receiving "external control signals" from a "communications device" to control a workout.
    • Technical Questions: A likely point of dispute for the ’120 Patent will be whether any accused functionality for calculating metrics like calorie burn constitutes the "conversion means" as described in the patent. For the ’509 Patent, a technical question is whether any communication capability in an accused product (e.g., internet, USB, Bluetooth) performs the function of receiving remotely-generated exercise programs in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’120 Patent: "conversion means"

  • The Term: "conversion means connected to receive said pulse signal and to convert said pulse signal into selected biological display data" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its scope is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. The definition of this term is critical because it links the user's raw pulse to the displayed feedback, which is a core element of the invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the structure in general terms as "circuitry" that "is available and may be easily assembled by those skilled in the art," which could suggest that any conventional circuitry performing the function is covered (’120 Patent, col. 3:62-65).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific function: converting pulse data "using constants" and assuming "an average number of calories are burned at a given pulse rate" (’120 Patent, col. 5:46-50; col. 2:1-3). A defendant may argue that the term is limited to structures that perform this specific type of algorithmic conversion, rather than any method of converting pulse data.

’509 Patent: "external control signals"

  • The Term: "external control signals containing information regarding adjustments to be made to the adjustment means to regulate the movement" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the data received from the remote source. Its construction will determine whether the patent can cover modern forms of data transfer not explicitly contemplated in 1991. Practitioners may focus on whether signals from modern sources like the internet or local media (e.g., USB drive) qualify as "external."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a "communications device" broadly and refers to the signals as containing "information regarding adjustments," which is not tied to a specific format (’509 Patent, Claim 1). Plaintiff may argue this covers any data from any source outside the console itself.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary examples of "external" sources are a VCR tape with audio-encoded data and a remote computer connected via a telephone modem (’509 Patent, col. 15:15-20; col. 15:58-65). A defendant could argue that "external control signals" should be limited to signals transmitted over a telecommunications network or from analog media, as described in the preferred embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes bare allegations of induced (35 U.S.C. § 271(b)) and contributory (35 U.S.C. § 271(c)) infringement (Compl. ¶14; Prayer for Relief ¶3.e-f). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support the requisite intent for inducement or to establish that Defendant supplied a component with no substantial non-infringing use for contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, stating that Star Trac "has had and continues to have notice of the existence of the ICON patents" (Compl. ¶15). It does not specify when or how this notice was allegedly provided.

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary hurdle for the Plaintiff, stemming from the 2003-era notice pleading, will be to develop a factual record in discovery. A key question is whether evidence will show that any specific Star Trac product sold before 2003 actually contained the claimed technology, particularly the remote-control functionality of the ’509 patent.

  2. Claim Scope and Technological Evolution: A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "communications device" and "external control signals", disclosed in the context of telephone modems and VCRs, be construed to cover modern data transfer technologies (e.g., internet streaming, local USB ports) that may be present in accused products?

  3. Means-Plus-Function Scope: The infringement analysis for the ’120 patent will likely depend on the scope of the "conversion means" limitation. The key question for the court will be identifying the specific structure (or algorithm) disclosed in the specification for converting a pulse signal to calorie data and determining if the accused products contain an equivalent structure.