Flywheel Sports Inc v. Peloton Interactive Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01411
• Patent #: 10,322,315
• Filed: August 9, 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 ’315 patent discloses a system for remote participation in exercise classes. It describes sending live and archived video and audio cycling class content over the internet to users on in-home stationary bikes, aiming to solve issues of overcrowding and scheduling limitations of in-person studio classes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Pryor

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pryor (Application # 2009/0233769).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pryor, which discloses a remote exercise system for participating in indoor cycling classes, taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Pryor described offering both live classes with a "real live spinning instructor" and archived classes where instructor video is "pulled from video clips." Petitioner contended that Pryor’s system included a stationary bike with a display, allowed users to select from available classes, output digital video and audio, determined user performance parameters (e.g., pedal speed, heart rate), and dynamically displayed performance data from multiple remote users for comparison to foster competition.
  • Key Aspects: The core of the argument was that Pryor’s disclosure of a "game" mode, where users compete and see comparative data like an "energy bar" on a bar graph against their competition, directly mapped to the ’315 patent’s claims of dynamically displaying performance parameters for comparison between a first and second user at the same points in the class.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, and 14 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 asserted Watterson taught a system for remote users to access live and stored exercise programs (including spinning classes) on exercise machines (e.g., treadmills) connected to a network. Watterson disclosed providing "motivational content," including live trainer webcasts and stored audio/video presentations. While Watterson disclosed a competition mode where users could race and view each other's performance data (distance, time, speed), Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to combine this with Hurwitz. Hurwitz disclosed competitive stationary bike classes where performance data (power output, cadence) of all participants was displayed in real-time on a shared screen to enhance user engagement and provide a competitive benchmark.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Watterson and Hurwitz to enhance the user experience. Watterson taught the benefit of a group session in a home environment, and Hurwitz taught that displaying group performance data increases competition and user engagement. A POSITA would have been motivated to supplement Watterson’s trainer-led classes with Hurwitz’s real-time competitive data display to provide a more engaging and competitive remote workout, which was a known objective in the field.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as both references operated in the same field of networked exercise. Modifying Watterson’s software to incorporate the real-time group data display taught by Hurwitz would have been a routine and predictable software modification.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 over Watterson and Hurwitz in further view of Elshout

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Watterson (Patent 7,628,730), Hurwitz (Patent 7,874,957), and Elshout (WO 2005/087323).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Watterson and Hurwitz combination to teach limitations in dependent claims, particularly those related to a "secondary window" (claims 3, 13) and a "leaderboard" (claims 6, 16). Petitioner argued that while Watterson disclosed a web-based interface for selecting classes, Elshout explicitly taught using a customizable graphical user interface with a central window for race video and peripheral areas for displaying performance data. A POSITA would find it obvious to configure Watterson’s web interface to display class video in a primary window and the competitive data from Hurwitz in a secondary window, as taught by Elshout, to provide a customizable and user-friendly display.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to improve the user interface and provide user customization, an implicit goal in Elshout. For the leaderboard claims, Petitioner argued that Hurwitz and Elshout both explicitly disclosed displaying competitive performance data in a leaderboard format to motivate users. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate this well-known feature into the Watterson/Hurwitz system to meet the known objective of fostering competition.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing a secondary window in a web browser interface or displaying data in a leaderboard format were common, standard practices at the time. Success in combining these features to create a more intuitive and competitive exercise interface would have been highly predictable.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 are obvious over Pryor alone (Ground 2) and that claims 6 and 16 are obvious over Pryor in view of the Flywheel publication (Ground 3), relying on similar arguments about known methods for fostering competition.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "archived exercise class": Petitioner argued this term should be construed simply as on-demand content that includes stored digital video and audio. This construction opposed the Patent Owner’s anticipated position that the term requires a stored recording of an entire cycling class, a limitation Petitioner argued is not supported by the claims or specification.
• Limitations [1d]-[1g]: Petitioner contended these method steps, which relate to outputting content and displaying performance data, are contingent on the user’s selection of either a live or an archived class. The prior art, therefore, need not show these steps are performable for both class types simultaneously. This counters an expected argument that the prior art fails if it only discloses these features for live races but not for archived classes.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny review under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). Although Pryor, Watterson, and Hurwitz were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution, Petitioner asserted they were never substantively discussed or applied in a rejection by the Examiner. Petitioner maintained that the mere listing of a reference in an IDS does not constitute the level of consideration that would warrant discretionary denial, especially when the petition presents new arguments and evidence, such as an expert declaration.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’315 patent as unpatentable.