Flywheel Sports Inc v. Peloton Interactive Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00564
• Patent #: 9,861,855
• Filed: January 17, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Flywheel Sports, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Peloton Interactive, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Exercise system and method
• Brief Description: The ’855 patent describes a system for providing in-home exercise by sending live and archived video and audio cycling class content to users on stationary bikes via the internet. The system allows users to view performance metrics and compare their performance with other users in the class.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Pryor - Claims 1-20 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or, in the alternative, are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Pryor.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pryor (Application # 2009/0233769).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pryor discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Pryor teaches a remote exercise system for participating in live, hybrid, or archived online spinning classes from home via the internet. It discloses a stationary bike with a display that presents information about available classes, allows user selection, and outputs the selected class video and audio. Pryor further describes detecting a plurality of performance parameters (e.g., pedal speed, resistance, energy burned) from a first bike, displaying them to the user, and also displaying performance parameters of other class participants for comparison on a bar graph or via "scores" to foster competition.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner asserted that any minor differences between Pryor and the claims would have been obvious modifications. For example, if displaying class information on the main exercise screen was not explicitly taught, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would be motivated to do so to avoid requiring a separate computer, an explicit goal of Pryor.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have a high expectation of success in making any such modifications, as they would involve applying well-known programming techniques, such as using windows-based graphical user interfaces to organize displayed information.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Watterson and Hurwitz - Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are obvious over Watterson in view of Hurwitz.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Watterson (Patent 7,628,730) and Hurwitz (Patent 7,874,957).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Watterson discloses a system of remote exercise machines for simulating a group workout, providing either live or stored exercise programs (including spinning classes) over a network to a user's home. Watterson teaches displaying class information, allowing selection, and outputting video/audio content. It also discloses detecting and displaying a user's own performance parameters. However, Petitioner argued Watterson does not explicitly teach displaying performance data of other class participants during a trainer-led class for comparison. Hurwitz allegedly remedies this by disclosing competitive stationary bike classes where performance data (e.g., power output, cadence) of all participants is displayed in real-time to all other participants to track relative performance.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine Watterson and Hurwitz to enhance the user engagement of Watterson's home-based system. Watterson's stated goal was to provide the "benefits of a group exercise session in a home environment." Hurwitz teaches that a key benefit of a group session is the competitive aspect, which can be enhanced by providing real-time comparative feedback. Therefore, a POSA would be motivated to add Hurwitz's competitive data display to Watterson's system to better achieve Watterson's own objective.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have understood that Watterson's system was already capable of displaying performance data and could be predictably modified with routine software changes to display comparative data from other users as taught by Hurwitz.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Watterson, Hurwitz, and Elshout - Claims 4-8 and 12-20 are obvious over Watterson in view of Hurwitz and in further view of Elshout.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Watterson (’730 patent), Hurwitz (’957 patent), and Elshout (WO 2005/087323).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Watterson and Hurwitz combination to address dependent claims related to the display format, such as presenting performance parameters in a "secondary window" (claims 4, 12). Petitioner argued that Elshout, which discloses a networked sports training system with online races, teaches a user interface with a central window for race video graphics and a peripheral area for displaying performance data (e.g., cadence, power). This peripheral data display constitutes the claimed "secondary window." Elshout also teaches that the specific performance data displayed can be configured by the user.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA, having already combined Watterson and Hurwitz to create a competitive home cycling class, would look to known user interface designs like Elshout's to organize the display. Elshout's use of separate windows for class video and performance data was a well-understood and intuitive method for arranging material. This configuration would be a predictable design choice to prevent performance data from obscuring the instructor video, thereby improving the user experience.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Implementing a windows-based display using web browser technology, as taught by Watterson and Elshout, was a standard, commonplace practice that would have yielded predictable results.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Pryor with a Flywheel publication to explicitly teach a "leaderboard," and combining Watterson and Hurwitz with the same Flywheel publication for the same purpose.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "secondary window" (claims 4, 12): Petitioner construed this term as "a viewing area on the display screen separate from the area in which the digital video content is displayed." This construction was argued as consistent with the patent's figures and necessary to map prior art like Elshout, which shows performance data displayed on the periphery of a central video window.
• "leaderboard" (claims 18, 20): Petitioner construed this term as "a table, listing, or similar representation that provides the relative performance of participants in a competition." This construction was used to argue that prior art disclosing competitive rankings, scores, or bar graphs met the limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §325(d), even though the primary references (Pryor, Watterson, Hurwitz) were cited during prosecution of the ’855 patent. Petitioner asserted that these references were never substantively discussed or applied by the Examiner. The petition presented new arguments, new evidence (including an expert declaration and additional prior art like Elshout), and a more thorough analysis than what the Examiner considered, thus warranting a review to correct errors from prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’855 patent as unpatentable.