Tonal Systems Inc

General

Total Cases5

Active Cases1

Patents85

CourtsD. Delaware E.D. Texas

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/09/23	Tonal Systems Inc v. Shenzhen Speediance Living Technology Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00517 ( E.D. TX )	SUMMONS Issued as to SHENZHEN SPEEDIANCE LIVING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.. (ch, ) (Entered: 11/09/2023)
11/09/23	Tonal Systems Inc v. Shenzhen Speediance Living Technology Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00517 ( E.D. TX )	Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (ch, ) (Entered: 11/09/2023)
11/09/23	Tonal Systems Inc v. Shenzhen Speediance Living Technology Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00517 ( E.D. TX )	In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (ch, ) (Entered: 11/09/2023) In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (ch, ) (Entered: 11/09/2023)
11/08/23	Tonal Systems Inc v. Shenzhen Speediance Living Technology Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00517 ( E.D. TX )	Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by TONAL SYSTEMS, INC. (Saulsbury, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2023)
11/08/23	Tonal Systems Inc v. Shenzhen Speediance Living Technology Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00517 ( E.D. TX )	Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Saulsbury, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2023)
11/08/23	Tonal Systems Inc v. Shenzhen Speediance Living Technology Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00517 ( E.D. TX )	COMPLAINT against SHENZHEN SPEEDIANCE LIVING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXEDC-9807269.), filed by TONAL SYSTEMS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Saulsbury, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2023)
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)