DCT
1:17-cv-00154
Nautilus Inc v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nautilus, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:16-cv-05393, W.D. Wash., 05/23/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant’s offers for sale and sales of the accused products to residents within the Western District of Washington, including through an interactive e-commerce website.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FreeStride Trainer line of exercise machines infringes four patents related to variable stride technology for elliptical-style machines.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns stationary exercise machines that dynamically adapt the length of a user's striding path to match their natural movements, accommodating different user sizes and exercise types.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the earliest asserted patent since at least 2005, when it was cited during the prosecution of a patent application filed by Defendant that named its own employees as inventors.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-30 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2004-02-10 | U.S. Patent No. 6,689,019 Issues |
| 2005-04-14 | Defendant Icon files a patent application that cites the ’019 Patent |
| 2008-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,341,542 Issues |
| 2009-12-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,632,219 Issues |
| 2012-12-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,323,155 Issues |
| 2014 | Accused FreeStride Trainer FS7i allegedly introduced to U.S. market |
| 2015-04-09 | Date of an online customer review for an accused product cited in complaint |
| 2016-01-02 | Date of an online customer review for an accused product cited in complaint |
| 2016-05-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,689,019 - "Exercise Machine", issued February 10, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art elliptical exercise machines as confining a user to a predetermined, machine-defined foot path, which does not accommodate the natural stride lengths of different users or allow for variation in stride during a single exercise session ('019 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exercise machine where the horizontal component of the striding motion is dynamically defined by the user, while the vertical component follows a predetermined reciprocating path ('019 Patent, col. 2:49-55). This is achieved by a mechanism that decouples the user's foot supports from the crank arms that drive the vertical motion, allowing the user to naturally extend or shorten their stride length without making mechanical adjustments to the machine ('019 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9). Figure 1 illustrates a mechanical linkage with foot links (4, 6) suspended by swing arms (10, 12) at the front and supported by rollers on crank arms (28, 30) at the rear ('019 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a single machine to adapt to users of different heights and to seamlessly simulate different exercises, from short stepping motions to long running strides, based solely on the user’s input ('019 Patent, col. 2:55-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('019 Patent, Compl. ¶30).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A right foot engagement member and a left foot engagement member.
- Right and left rotatable crank arms that support and reciprocally lift and lower a first portion of the respective foot engagement members.
- The first portions of the foot engagement members are "decoupled" from the crank arms to allow forward and rearward movement relative to the crank arms.
- A second portion support that guides a second portion of the foot engagement members in a forward-rearward reciprocating motion.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,341,542 - "Exercise Machine", issued March 11, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’019 patent, the '542 Patent addresses the limitations of exercise equipment with fixed, machine-defined stride paths that do not conform to a user’s natural motion ('542 Patent, col. 1:20-53).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes an exercise apparatus with a "dynamically variable stride length" where the horizontal foot motion is user-defined and the vertical motion is maintained on a predetermined path ('542 Patent, col. 2:54-62). The core inventive concept of decoupling the horizontal and vertical components of the stride path is continued from the parent '019 Patent, allowing the machine to automatically compensate for changes in the user's stride length during exercise ('542 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to create a more natural and adaptable exercise experience, accommodating a wide range of users and workout intensities on a single device ('542 Patent, col. 2:54-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('542 Patent, Compl. ¶33).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A right foot engagement member and a left foot engagement member, each having first and second end portions.
- Right and left "lifting-lowering members" that support and reciprocally lift and lower the first end portion of the respective foot engagement members.
- The first end portions are "decoupled" from the lifting-lowering members to allow forward and rearward movement relative to them.
- A second end portion support that guides the second end portions of the foot engagement members.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,632,219 - "Exercise Machine", issued December 15, 2009
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, also discloses an exercise machine with a user-defined variable stride. It describes embodiments where the front swing arms supporting the foot links are interconnected by a bell crank assembly, creating a mechanical dependency that coordinates the forward and rearward motion of the left and right foot members ('219 Patent, col. 19:35-51).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶36).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that at least the FS7i exercise device infringes (Compl. ¶36).
U.S. Patent No. 8,323,155 - "Exercise Machine", issued December 4, 2012
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, describes a variable-stride exercise machine that utilizes downward-facing cams adjacent to the first ends of the foot members. These cams ride on supports (e.g., rollers) that are part of the crank arms, providing a mechanism for the decoupled vertical and horizontal motion ('155 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:29-40).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶39).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that at least the FS7i exercise device infringes (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Defendant Icon’s FreeStride Trainer exercise machines, including the “FS7i,” “FS5i,” and “FS9i” models (Compl. ¶3, 14, 25). The complaint provides an image of the accused 'FS7i' model from Defendant's website (Compl. Fig. 1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these machines are marketed with an "auto adjustable stride" feature (Compl. ¶3). A marketing graphic from the complaint describes this as a "floating stride mechanism" that "is ergonomically designed to adapt to the way you move," offering training that "ranges from short up-and-down steps to long, 38-inch strides" (Compl. Fig. 2). This functionality is alleged to combine the benefits of a stepper, treadmill, and elliptical machine into a single unit that competes in the home exercise market (Compl. Fig. 2, ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 6,689,019 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An exercise apparatus for use by a user performing a striding exercise... | The accused FreeStride Trainer exercise machines, including the FS7i model. | ¶3, Fig. 1 | col. 1:5-7 |
| right and left foot engagement members... | The pedals on which the user stands to operate the FreeStride Trainer machine. | Fig. 1 | col. 5:5-10 |
| right and left rotatable crank arms supporting and reciprocally lifting and lowering the first portion of the right and left foot engagement members... | The internal mechanism of the FreeStride Trainer that moves the pedals in a vertical motion. | ¶20 | col. 5:54-61 |
| the first portions of the right and left foot engagement members being decoupled from the respective ones of the right and left crank arms to allow movement thereof in forward and rearward directions... | The "floating stride mechanism" that provides an "auto adjustable stride" by allegedly allowing the user's feet to move forward and backward independent of the vertical lifting mechanism. | ¶3, Fig. 2 | col. 2:1-9 |
| a second portion support guiding the second portions of the right and left foot engagement members to follow a forward-rearward reciprocating motion... | The forward linkage of the FreeStride Trainer that guides the front of the pedals. | ¶20 | col. 5:14-24 |
U.S. Patent No. 7,341,542 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An exercise apparatus for use by a user performing a striding exercise... | The accused FreeStride Trainer exercise machines, including the FS7i model. | ¶3, Fig. 1 | col. 1:12-14 |
| right and left lifting-lowering members supporting and reciprocally lifting and lowering the first end portion of the right and left foot engagement members... | The internal mechanism of the FreeStride Trainer that imparts vertical motion to the pedals. | ¶20 | col. 23:49-56 |
| the first end portions of the right and left foot engagement members being decoupled from the respective ones of the right and left lifting-lowering members to allow movement thereof in forward and rearward directions... | The "floating stride mechanism" that allows the machine to "adapt to the way you move" by allegedly separating the horizontal stride motion from the vertical lifting motion. | ¶3, Fig. 2 | col. 2:54-62 |
| a second end portion support arranged to support the second end portions of the right and left foot engagement members... | The forward linkage of the FreeStride Trainer that guides the front portion of the pedals. | ¶20 | col. 23:15-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for all asserted patents will be the scope of the term "decoupled" and its equivalents. The dispute may focus on whether the accused "floating stride mechanism" permits the degree of independent forward-rearward movement relative to the vertical-motion-imparting linkage (e.g., crank arms) that is required by the claims.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides marketing materials rather than technical specifications for the accused products. A primary evidentiary question will be whether the actual mechanical operation of the FreeStride Trainers corresponds to the claimed structures. For example, what specific mechanism in the accused product constitutes the claimed "rotatable crank arms" or "lifting-lowering members," and how does it interact with the foot pedals to allow for a variable stride?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "decoupled" ('019 Patent, Claim 1; '542 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted patents, defining the invention's departure from fixed-path exercise machines. The outcome of the infringement analysis for all asserted patents may depend on how this term is construed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the requisite relationship, or lack thereof, between the horizontal (user-driven) and vertical (machine-driven) components of motion.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the foot links "reciprocally move freely rearward and forward relative to the rollers" ('019 Patent, col. 5:12-14) and that the "forward-rearward motion of the foot...is independent of any downward-upward motion" ('019 Patent, col. 10:45-49). This language may support a broad functional definition where any mechanism allowing for user-defined horizontal movement separate from the mechanically-driven vertical movement meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment discloses foot links that "rollingly rest atop a roller" attached to the crank arms ('019 Patent, col. 5:4-9). A defendant may argue that "decoupled" should be limited to arrangements providing a similar degree of free, low-friction relative movement, and does not cover linkages that might allow some relative motion but are still mechanically constrained.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement "is and has been willful" (Compl. ¶27). The allegations are based on both constructive and actual knowledge, stating Defendant "knew or should have known" its actions constituted infringement (Compl. ¶26). Specifically, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of the ’019 Patent since at least April 14, 2005, when it was cited during the prosecution of a patent application filed by Defendant (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: does the accused "floating stride mechanism" in Icon's FreeStride Trainers operate in a way that is "decoupled" from the vertical lifting mechanism, as that term is defined by the claims and specification of the Nautilus patents? The resolution will depend on both claim construction and a factual analysis of the accused product's mechanics.
- A key question for damages will be one of intent: does Icon's alleged knowledge of the '019 patent since 2005, arising from its own patent prosecution activities, suffice to meet the standard for willful infringement, given that the accused products were allegedly launched nine years later?