ARTICLE
9 February 2022

iFIT Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Exercise Systems

OM
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P

Contributor

Oblon is among the largest US law firms that exclusively practice IP law. Businesses worldwide depend on Oblon to establish, protect and leverage their IP assets. Our team of 100+ legal professionals includes some of the country’s most respected practitioners. Most attorneys hold advanced degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry, biotechnology and other scientific disciplines. Oblon is headquartered within steps of the USPTO office in Alexandria, Virginia. 
On February 2, 2022, iFIT Inc. (FKA ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.) of Logan, Utah ("iFIT") filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.
United States Intellectual Property

On February 2, 2022, iFIT Inc. (FKA ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.) of Logan, Utah ("iFIT") filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, "Respondents") unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic exercise systems, stationary bicycles, and components thereof that infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,013,960 ("the '960 patent):

  • Peloton Interactive, Inc. of New York, New York
  • Peloton Interactive UK Ltd. of London, England
  • Tonic Fitness Technology, Inc. of Taiwan
  • Rexon Industrial Corp. Ltd. of Taiwan

According to the complaint, the '960 patent generally relates to an exercise system that includes a stationary bicycle having pedals and a free weight cradle incorporated into the stationary bicycles, as well as a display, one or more processors, and memory.  The accused products include the Peloton Bike+ model stationary bicycle and the similar equipment.

The complaint states that iFIT and Peloton are involved in four other lawsuits in the District of Delaware, none of which involved the '960 patent.

Regarding domestic industry, iFIT alleges that a domestic industry exists under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3) relating to aspects of the iFit technology protected by the '960 patent, including related stationary bicycle products, based on iFIT's large investments made in plant and equipment and employment of labor and capital relating to research, development, testing, and engineering, among other activities.  Specifically, the complaint identifies the following Internet connected stationary bicycles utilizing the iFit platform that practice the '960 patent:  Pro-Form Studio Bike Pro, Pro-Form Studio Bike Pro 22, NordicTrack s15i Studio Bike, and NordicTrack s22i Studio Bike.

With respect to potential remedy, iFIT requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease-and-desist order directed to each proposed Respondent.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More