Echelon Fitness Multimedia LLC v. Peloton Interactive Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01186
• Patent #: 10,322,315
• Filed: July 2, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Peloton Interactive, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Providing Streaming and On-Demand Exercise Classes
• Brief Description: The ’315 patent discloses a system for providing users with access to live, streaming, and on-demand exercise classes (e.g., cycling classes) over the Internet. The technology purports to make competitive, instructor-led class experiences, traditionally available only in-studio, accessible to remote users by using features like a comparative leaderboard display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 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 argued that Watterson discloses a networked exercise system that provides both live and archived classes over the Internet, including a "Competition Module" for group activities. However, Watterson lacked specific details for implementing its system with exercise cycles. Hurwitz was argued to supply these missing details, as it discloses a system for competitive cycling classes with sensors to measure performance data (e.g., power output, cadence) and a leaderboard that displays this data for real-time comparison among users. Petitioner asserted that Watterson teaches the broad method steps of the independent claims (displaying and selecting classes, outputting content), while Hurwitz teaches the specific performance parameter and comparative display limitations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Hurwitz with Watterson to improve Watterson's system for the specific application of cycling. Petitioner contended that Hurwitz’s specific sensors and leaderboard display provide a known, simple, and effective way to implement the competitive features Watterson describes more generally, thereby creating a more engaging and functional remote cycling class experience.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Hurwitz’s sensors include communication components designed to interface with processing devices, and Watterson’s control panel is designed to receive sensor data. Petitioner argued that combining the two would be a straightforward integration of known, compatible components.

Ground 2: Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are obvious over Hurwitz in view of Garcia and Martens.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hurwitz (Patent 7,874,957), Garcia (Application # 2011/0224999), and Martens (Patent 7,736,272).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground starts with Hurwitz as the base system for live, competitive remote cycling classes. Petitioner argued that Hurwitz does not explicitly detail how users access classes over the Internet or how to compete against archived performances. Garcia was argued to teach a conventional web interface for users to select from both live and archived exercise classes. Martens was argued to teach a method for enhancing competition in archived classes by synchronizing a current user's real-time performance data with the stored performance data of prior participants ("shadow competitors"), making the comparison appear contemporaneous.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to add well-known functionality to Hurwitz's system. First, a POSITA would use Garcia's conventional web interface to predictably add the option of on-demand, archived classes to Hurwitz's live-only system. Second, to make these archived classes competitive, a POSITA would be motivated to apply Martens's known technique of synchronizing live and archived data. This would allow a user to experience the same competitive benefits of a live class (as taught by Hurwitz) when taking an archived class.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected, as the combination involves applying known techniques (Garcia's web interface, Martens's data synchronization) to a known system (Hurwitz) to achieve the predictable result of an enhanced exercise system with both live and competitive on-demand classes.

Ground 3: Claims 10 and 20 are obvious over Hurwitz, Garcia, and Martens, further in view of Loveland.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hurwitz (Patent 7,874,957), Garcia (Application # 2011/0224999), Martens (Patent 7,736,272), and Loveland (Application # 2011/0086707).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination in Ground 2 to challenge the video chat limitations of claims 10 and 20. Loveland was argued to disclose using a conventional, commercially-available tablet computer, such as an iPad, as the display and computing device for an exercise system. Petitioner contended that such tablets have built-in video chat capabilities (e.g., FaceTime).
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to implement the networked exercise system of the primary combination (Hurwitz, Garcia, and Martens) on a modern, portable, and multi-functional device. A POSITA would find it obvious to use a tablet like the iPad, as taught by Loveland, for its convenience and portability. Because such devices conventionally include video chat functionality, it would be an obvious design choice to enable that feature for communication between users of the exercise system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be reasonably expected because implementing a software application on a conventional computing device like an iPad and utilizing its native, built-in features like video chat is a routine and predictable task for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that no specific claim constructions were required and that the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. The petition asserted that the claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction.
• For context, Petitioner presented the Patent Owner's proposed constructions from a related district court litigation for terms including "live [cycling/exercise] class," "archived [cycling/exercise] class," "performance parameters," and "leaderboard," while noting that it takes no position on those proposals in the petition.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate.
• It was acknowledged that the Watterson and Hurwitz references were disclosed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. However, Petitioner contended that the examiner never analyzed or discussed these references. Furthermore, the petition presented new evidence and arguments, including the Garcia and Martens references and different motivations to combine, which had not been previously considered by the USPTO.

6. Relief Requested

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