Icon Health Fitness Inc

General

Total Cases54

Active Cases1

Patents153

CourtsD. Utah C.D. California D. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L3

E

PTAB

L5

E

CAFC

L3

E

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
09/07/22	Dish Tech LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc 1:21-CV-00531 ( D. DE )	Case Reassigned to Judge Gregory B Williams. Please include the initials of the Judge (GBW) after the case number on all documents filed. (smg)
08/30/22	Dish Tech LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc 1:21-CV-00531 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Valerie A. Caras as co-counsel. Reason for request: Leaving the Firm. (Caras, Valerie)
08/03/22	Dish Tech LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc 1:21-CV-00531 ( D. DE )	Joint STATUS REPORT by DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.. (Day, John)
08/01/22	Dish Tech LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc 1:21-CV-00531 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: A joint status letter is due no later than three (3) days from the date of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/1/2022. (nms)
05/16/22	Tonal Systems Inc v. iFIT Inc 1:20-CV-01197 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of iFIT's Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery filed by iFIT Inc. .(Haynes, Christine)
05/16/22	Tonal Systems Inc v. iFIT Inc 1:20-CV-01197 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Tonal System Inc. 's Disclosures to iFIT Inc. Pursuant to Delaware Default Standard Paragraph 3 filed by iFIT Inc. .(Ying, Jennifer)
05/16/22	Tonal Systems Inc v. iFIT Inc 1:20-CV-01197 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute motion, (D.I. 91), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 93. D.I. 94. D.I. 97. D.I. 98), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to Tonal Systems Inc. 's ("Tonal") request that iFit Inc. ("iFit") be ordered to respond fully to Interrogatory No. 10 (Rogg 10) in advance of Tonal being required to narrow its election of prior art references and prior art grounds, (D.I. 93 at 1), the request is DENIED. The Court agrees with iFit's position that so long as iFit engaged in the substantial work necessary to produce initial infringement contentions, and Tonal then engaged in the substantial work necessary to produce initial invalidity contentions, as the parties did here, then that work would sufficiently establish a fair record upon which iFit could then narrow the number of asserted claims, and for Tonal to then narrow the number of prior art references and grounds. In light of this, the Court's prior order on case narrowing had required Tonal to narrow its invalidity case "by May 4, 2022" (i.e., after these two sets of contentions had been served). That order did not say that Tonal should narrow its invalidity case "by May 4, 2022 (but only if iFit also provides validity contentions by that date)[.]" (D.I. 59) Accordingly, within 7 days of the date of this Order, Tonal shall narrow its Section 102/103 invalidity case to no more than 50 prior art references and 75 grounds ("Tonal's First Narrowing").. (2) With regard to iFit's request that it should only be required to respond to Rogg 10 with respect to the specific grounds of invalidity set forth by Tonal in its First Narrowing, (D.I. 94 at 3), the request is GRANTED. Tonal does not appear to dispute that any response to Rogg 10 would just encompass the specific grounds set out in Tonal's invalidity case at the time of iFit's response. (D.I. 98 at 1) And that outcome makes sense. Accordingly, within 28 days after Tonal's First Narrowing, (see D.I. 92 at 2), iFit Inc. shall respond to Rogg 10 as to the specific grounds of invalidity that Tonal has set forth in its First Narrowing.. And (3) Today's discovery dispute teleconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/16/2022. (dlb) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute motion, (D.I. 91), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 93. D.I. 94. D.I. 97. D.I. 98), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to Tonal Systems Inc. 's ("Tonal") request that iFit Inc. ("iFit") be ordered to respond fully to Interrogatory No. 10 (Rogg 10) in advance of Tonal being required to narrow its election of prior art references and prior art grounds, (D.I. 93 at 1), the request is DENIED. The Court agrees with iFit's position that so long as iFit engaged in the substantial work necessary to produce initial infringement contentions, and Tonal then engaged in the substantial work necessary to produce initial invalidity contentions, as the parties did here, then that work would sufficiently establish a fair record upon which iFit could then narrow the number of asserted claims, and for Tonal to then narrow the number of prior art references and grounds. In light of this, the Court's prior order on case narrowing had required Tonal to narrow its invalidity case "by May 4, 2022" (i.e., after these two sets of contentions had been served). That order did not say that Tonal should narrow its invalidity case "by May 4, 2022 (but only if iFit also provides validity contentions by that date)[.]" (D.I. 59) Accordingly, within 7 days of the date of this Order, Tonal shall narrow its Section 102/103 invalidity case to no more than 50 prior art references and 75 grounds ("Tonal's First Narrowing").. (2) With regard to iFit's request that it should only be required to respond to Rogg 10 with respect to the specific grounds of invalidity set forth by Tonal in its First Narrowing, (D.I. 94 at 3), the request is GRANTED. Tonal does not appear to dispute that any response to Rogg 10 would just encompass the specific grounds set out in Tonal's invalidity case at the time of iFit's response. (D.I. 98 at 1) And that outcome makes sense. Accordingly, within 28 days after Tonal's First Narrowing, (see D.I. 92 at 2), iFit Inc. shall respond to Rogg 10 as to the specific grounds of invalidity that Tonal has set forth in its First Narrowing.. And (3) Today's discovery dispute teleconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 5/16/2022. (dlb)
05/12/22	Tonal Systems Inc v. iFIT Inc 1:20-CV-01197 ( D. DE )	REPLY to Response to Motion re [85] MOTION for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Complaint filed by iFIT Inc. . (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A-F)(Haynes, Christine)
05/10/22	Tonal Systems Inc v. iFIT Inc 1:20-CV-01197 ( D. DE )	Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Jennifer Ying regarding iFIT Inc. 's May 3, 2022 Letter (D.I. 94). (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit M)(Ying, Jennifer)
05/10/22	Tonal Systems Inc v. iFIT Inc 1:20-CV-01197 ( D. DE )	Letter to Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Frederick L. Cottrell, III regarding Response to Issues raised in Letter to the Court - re [93] Letter. (Cottrell, Frederick)