(Reuters) – Peloton Interactive Inc has escaped rival Mad Dogg Athletics’ claims that it infringed Mad Dogg’s exercise-bike patents, after an East Texas federal court found the relevant parts of the Mad Dogg patents were likely related to abstract ideas.
Peloton showed that Mad Dogg’s patents were directed to the patent-ineligible concepts of «providing instruction for an exercise bike class» and «collecting, analyzing, and presenting information,» U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap said Wednesday in dismissing Mad Dogg’s complaint.
Gilstrap stopped short of holding the patents invalid as a matter of law, but said there was a «clear absence of factual allegations to support the eligibility of the patents-in-suit,» and gave Mad Dogg the chance to file a new complaint to address patent eligibility.
Peloton’s lead attorney Steve Feldman of Latham & Watkins said in a statement that he was «thrilled» with the decision.
Mad Dogg declined to comment, and its attorneys David Gindler of Milbank and Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Peloton didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment; neither did Mad Dogg or its attorneys David Gindler of Milbank and Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux.
Peloton, a popular New York-based at-home fitness company, has also been involved in patent disputes with rivals, including Flywheel and NordicTrack maker iFit.
Venice, California-based Mad Dogg, known for its «Spinning» bikes, sued Peloton last year for allegedly infringing two of its patents related to «the world’s first touch-screen display-controlled indoor cycling bike,» which included «instructor-led coaching» videos and heart-rate training.
In February, Peloton told the Marshall, Texas court that the Mad Dogg patents, granted in 2017 and 2018, were unenforceable because they related to the abstract idea of «providing instruction for using an exercise bike.»
That same month, Peloton also asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel Mad Dogg’s federal trademarks for «Spin» and «Spinning,» arguing they had become generic.
Gilstrap agreed on Wednesday that the patents’ alleged innovation of using a computer on a bike to simulate an instructor’s class and store workout information wasn’t patent eligible. Simulating a cycling class is an abstract idea, and Mad Dogg didn’t show that the invention included a patentable improvement to computer functioning, Gilstrap said.
Gilstrap also said Mad Dogg didn’t demonstrate that the patents contained an inventive concept that would save them.
The case is Mad Dogg Athletics Inc v. Peloton Interactive Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:20-cv-00382.