Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 5312
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`
` Plaintiff/
`Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`IFIT, INC.,
`
`
` Defendant/
`Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 20-662-RGA
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PELOTON’S
`PATENT CLAIMS PENDING OUTCOME OF INSTITUTED IPR PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David R. Wright
`Taylor J. Wright
`Alexis K. Juergens
`Ray Nelson
`Maren Laurence
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`299 South Main Street, Suite 2000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`
`Ruben J. Rodrigues
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199
`
`Pavan K. Agarwal
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`Valerie A. Caras (#6608)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`caras@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for iFIT, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 5313
`
`
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio
`Matthew J. McIntee
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`Joseph A. Loy
`Ryan Kane
`Nathaniel DeLucia
`Matthew B. Hershkowitz
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`
`Robin A. McCue
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`Jonathan E. Moskin
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016-1314
`
`Dated: January 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 5314
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STATE OF LITIGATION ....................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Simplify The Issues In Question ......................................................... 4
`
`This Case Is Still In A Relatively Early Stage ........................................................ 5
`
`A Stay Would Not Unduly Prejudice or Give Peloton a Clear Tactical
`Disadvantage ........................................................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Timing of the Review Request ................................................................... 6
`
`Timing of the Stay Request......................................................................... 7
`
`Status of the Review Proceedings ............................................................... 7
`
`Relationship Between the Parties................................................................ 8
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 5315
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`454 Life Scis. Corp. v. Ion Torrent Sys., Inc.,
`No. 15-595-LPS, 2016 WL 6594083 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2016) ................................................4, 7
`
`Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. DexCom, Inc.,
`No. 05-590-GMS, 2006 WL 2375035 (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2006) ................................................3
`
`AgroFresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC,
`No. 16-662-MN, 2019 WL 2327654 (D. Del. May 31, 2019) ...............................................3, 5
`
`Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Synaptics, Inc.,
`No. 15-910-GMS, 2016 WL 9331100 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2016) .............................................4, 5
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`Nos. 12-1107-GMS, 12-1109-1110-GMS, 2014 WL 1369721
`(D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014) ........................................................................................................4, 5, 6
`
`Copy Prot. LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 14-365-LPS, 2015 WL 3799363 (D. Del. June 17, 2015) ..................................................7
`
`Davol, Inc. v. Atrium Med. Corp.,
`No. 12-958-GMS, 2013 WL 3013343 (D. Del. June 17, 2013) ................................................6
`
`F’Real Foods v. Hamilton Beach Brands,
`No. 16-41-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231390 (D. Del. May 9, 2017).................................6
`
`First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. MacLaren, L.L.C.,
`No. 10-363-GMS, 2012 WL 769601 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2012) ....................................................5
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 3943058 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) ...............................................4
`
`Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., Ltd.,
`830 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................3
`
`Neste Oil OYJ v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC,
` No. 12-1744-GMS, 2013 WL 3353984 (D. Del. July 2, 2013) .................................................9
`
`Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`981 F.3d 1015, 1026-28 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................5
`
`Textron Innovations Inc. v. Toro Co.,
`No. 05-486-GMS, 2007 WL 7772169 (D. Del. Apr. 25, 2007) ................................................4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5316
`
`
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D. Del. 2016) ...........................................................................................9
`
`UCB, Inc. v. Zydus Pharm. (USA) Inc.,
`No. 16-903-LPS, 2017 WL 4310860 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2017) .................................................3
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 .................................................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(b) ............................................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(c) ............................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 5317
`
`
`
`Defendant iFIT, Inc. (f/k/a ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.) (“iFIT”) respectfully moves to
`
`stay this case as to Plaintiff Peloton Interactive Inc.’s (“Peloton”) First and Second Causes of
`
`Action alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,486,026 (the “‘026 patent”) and infringement
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,639,521 (the “‘521 patent”), pending resolution of the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) instituted inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`of all claims of both the ‘026 patent and the ‘521 patent—all of the patents which Peloton is
`
`asserting in this matter. A stay is appropriate because (1) this case is in a relatively early stage as
`
`fact discovery has not yet been completed and expert reports have not been served; (2) the IPR
`
`will necessarily narrow the issues in dispute; and (3) a stay will neither unduly prejudice or
`
`tactically disadvantage Peloton.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STATE OF LITIGATION
`
`Peloton filed this case on May 15, 2020, alleging infringement of the ‘026 and ‘521 patents,
`
`violation of Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. Code §2531, et seq., violation of
`
`section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),
`
`Business and Professional Codes §17200 et seq. (D.I. 1). iFIT filed its Answer and Counterclaims
`
`on July 13, 2020, alleging, among other things, declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of
`
`the ‘026 and ‘521 patents. iFIT additionally brought counterclaims for patent infringement, as
`
`well as Peloton’s violations of the Lanham Act and Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The
`
`case is now in fact discovery, which is scheduled to be completed by February 22, 2022. The trial
`
`is scheduled to begin on October 17, 2022. (D.I. 194).
`
`On September 1, 2020, Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC (“Echelon”) filed an IPR petition
`
`requesting cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,486,026 (the “’026 patent”). On March
`
`3, 2021, the PTAB issued an order instituting IPR for all claims of the ’026 patent (see Ex. A,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 5318
`
`
`
`Decision Granting Institution of IPR Against the ’026 Patent). In granting institution, the PTAB
`
`found that Echelon’s petition demonstrated how during prosecution of the ’026 Patent “the
`
`Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims during prosecution,”
`
`and determined “that the Examiner overlooked the teachings of [the prior art] in determining the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims.” Ex. A at 14-15. The institution decision goes on to
`
`conclude that “Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating”
`
`all of the claims of the ’026 Patent “unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103” based on multiple
`
`different grounds. See Ex. A at 30-31. Oral hearing occurred on December 2, 2021 and a Final
`
`Written Decision is expected by March 3, 2022.
`
`On May 3, 2021, Echelon filed another IPR petition requesting cancellation of all claims
`
`of 10,639,521 (the “’521 patent”). Recently, on November 18, 2021, the PTAB issued an order
`
`instituting IPR for all claims of the ’521 patent (See Ex. B, Decision Granting Institution of IPR
`
`Against the ’521 Patent). In granting institution, the PTAB found the Petition provided “sufficient
`
`explanation, based on the current record, that [a reference] discloses or renders obvious” the claims
`
`and “an adequate explanation as to how to modify [references] in the manner Petitioner proposes
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Ex. B at 21-24. The institution decision goes on to
`
`conclude that “Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least
`
`one of the challenged claims” based on multiple different grounds. See Ex. B at 31.
`
`On December 17, 2021, iFIT filed a Motion to Join this instituted IPR proceeding. (See
`
`Ex. C, Motion to Join Instituted IPR Against the ’521 Patent). A Final Written Decision is expected
`
`in this IPR by November 18, 2022.
`
`In light of the PTAB’s decision to institute IPRs on all claims of all Peloton patents-in-suit,
`
`iFIT requests that Peloton’s infringement claims with respect to the two patents be stayed pending
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 5319
`
`
`
`resolution of the IPR proceedings. A stay would be the most efficient way to preserve the parties’
`
`and the Court’s time and resources in light of the institution of IPR on these patents, particularly
`
`since the PTAB will be issuing Final Written Decisions as to the validity of the patents well before
`
`(with respect to the ’026 Patent) or around the same time as (with respect to the ’521 Patent) that
`
`a Jury would be asked to assess the same issues. iFIT is not presently requesting that the case be
`
`stayed with respect to any other claims or defenses.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“The decision to stay a case is firmly within the discretion of the court.” Abbott Diabetes
`
`Care, Inc. v. DexCom, Inc., No. 05-590-GMS, 2006 WL 2375035, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2006).
`
`“The burden litigation places on the court and the parties when IPR proceedings loom is one such
`
`consideration that district courts may rightfully choose to weigh.” Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku
`
`Co., Ltd., 830 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Courts in this district consider three factors to determine whether a stay is appropriate: (1)
`
`whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving
`
`party; (2) the stage of the proceedings, including whether discovery is complete and a trial date
`
`has been set; and (3) whether it will simplify the issues for trial. See, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Zydus
`
`Pharm. (USA) Inc., No. 16-903-LPS, 2017 WL 4310860, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2017).
`
`Additionally, Courts in this district routinely stay claims pending IPRs while other non-
`
`patent claims proceed to trial. See, e.g., AgroFresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC, No. 16-662-MN, 2019
`
`WL 2327654, at *1 (D. Del. May 31, 2019), reargument denied, 2019 WL 2745723 (D. Del. July
`
`1, 2019); Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Synaptics, Inc., No. 15-910-GMS, 2016 WL 9331100, at *2 (D.
`
`Del. Oct. 25, 2016).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 5320
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should stay this case as to Peloton’s patent infringement claims pending
`
`resolution of the instituted IPRs. As discussed below, all three factors considered by courts in this
`
`district support a stay under the present circumstances.
`
`A. A Stay Will Simplify The Issues In Question
`
`“The most important factor bearing on whether to grant a stay is whether the stay is likely
`
`to simplify the issues at trial.” IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 18-452-WCB, 2019
`
`WL 3943058, at *8 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019). When the PTAB institutes IPR on all asserted claims,
`
`the issue simplification factor weighs heavily in favor of a stay. See VirtualAgility Inc. v.
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that the simplification factor
`
`“weigh[ed] heavily in favor of a stay” where “the PTAB granted CBM review on all asserted
`
`claims of the sole asserted patent”); see also 454 Life Scis. Corp. v. Ion Torrent Sys., Inc., No. 15-
`
`595-LPS, 2016 WL 6594083 at *3 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2016) (“There is a very strong likelihood that
`
`the IPR proceedings will simplify the issues for trial. This is primarily because the PTAB has
`
`granted review with respect to every asserted claim of all three patents-in-suit.”).
`
`
`
`Courts in this district have recognized the potential for issue simplification when the
`
`asserted claims are subject to a review by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., Nos. 12-1107-GMS, 12-1109-1110-
`
`GMS, 2014 WL 1369721, at *5 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014); see also Textron Innovations Inc. v. Toro
`
`Co., C.A. No. 05-486-GMS, 2007 WL 7772169, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 25, 2007).
`
`The existence of other claims in this case should not prevent a stay as to the claims for
`
`patent infringement. Courts in this district have granted stays on patent claims subject to instituted
`
`IPR proceedings while allowing other non-patent claims to move forward. See, e.g., AgroFresh,
`
`2019 WL 2327654, at *1; Amkor Tech., 2016 WL 9331100, at *2. Such a decision in this case is
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 5321
`
`
`
`reasonable because the issues and discovery involved in affirmative patent claims will be
`
`significantly different from the issues and discovery for non-patent claims. Even if the other claims
`
`in this case are allowed to continue, the issues in this case with respect to the patent infringement
`
`claim will be simplified by a stay.
`
`This factor favors a stay because the IPRs will address validity of all the patents asserted
`
`by Peloton in this case, which will likely result in invalidation of both patents. Even in the unlikely
`
`situation that the patents are not invalidated, the PTAB’s record and final written decisions would
`
`likely be helpful to simplifying invalidity and infringement issues in this case. For example, were
`
`the PTAB to conclude that certain claim limitations were not met by the asserted prior art, that
`
`would necessarily inform any invalidity analysis in this matter.
`
`Additionally, while iFIT has not filed nor sought to join an IPR petition against the ’026
`
`Patent, it has filed a Motion to Join the IPR against the ’521 Patent, and would be estopped from
`
`raising in this action any prior art actually raised in the IPR against the ’521 Patent once a Final
`
`Written Decision is reached—which would only further simplify the issues in dispute were
`
`Peloton’s patent infringement claims stayed through Final Written Decisions. See Network-1
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 981 F.3d 1015, 1026-28 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Accordingly, resolution of the two IPRs would overwhelmingly simplify the issues in this
`
`case, and this factor supports a stay.
`
`B. This Case Is Still In A Relatively Early Stage
`
`This factor also favors a stay because this case is still in a relatively early stage. “In
`
`considering the stage of litigation, the court asks ‘whether discovery is complete and whether a
`
`trial date has been set.’” Bonutti Skeletal, 2014 WL 1369721, at *6 (citing First Am. Title Ins. Co.
`
`v. MacLaren, L.L.C., No. 10-363-GMS, 2012 WL 769601, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2012)). “Staying
`
`a case in its early stages advances judicial efficiency and prevents the court and the parties from
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 5322
`
`
`
`expending resources on claims that may be rendered invalid.” Bonutti Skeletal, 2014 WL 1369721,
`
`at *6.
`
`Fact discovery is not set to be completed until February 22, 2022, with the majority of
`
`depositions in this matter yet to be taken. Expert reports addressing infringement and invalidity
`
`of the ’026 and ’521—which iFIT anticipates will be extensive—will not be exchanged until
`
`March 18, 2022. The anticipated trial date is approximately ten months away. See F’Real Foods
`
`v. Hamilton Beach Brands, No. 16-41-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231390, at *3, n.5 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 9, 2017) (finding case to be in early stages where trial not anticipated for eight months).
`
`Staying the case will promote judicial efficiency and allow the Court and the parties to
`
`avoid expending their assets addressing claims that may be rendered invalid.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Would Not Unduly Prejudice or Give Peloton a Clear Tactical
`Disadvantage
`
`When determining whether a stay would unduly prejudice or give the non-moving party a
`
`clear tactical disadvantage, courts in this district consider the following factors: “(1) the timing of
`
`the review request; (2) the timing of the request for stay; (3) the status of the review proceedings;
`
`and (4) the relationship of the parties.” Davol, Inc. v. Atrium Med. Corp., No. 12-958-GMS, 2013
`
`WL 3013343, at *2 (D. Del. June 17, 2013). Moreover, “[p]otential delay [pending IPR] does not
`
`in itself establish undue prejudice to the non-movant.” Bonutti Skeletal, 2014 WL 1369721, at *2.
`
`1.
`
`Timing of the Review Request
`
`Two IPR petitions requesting cancellation of all pending claims of the ‘026 and the ‘521
`
`patents were brought by a third party, Echelon. Echelon and iFIT are not related nor do they share
`
`any interest such that they would be considered in privity with another. However, now that the
`
`later filed IPR involving the ‘521 patent is instituted, iFIT has filed a petition and a request to join
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 5323
`
`
`
`the proceeding based on the same grounds of invalidity as Echelon’s petition. iFIT, Inc. v. Peloton
`
`Interactive, Inc., IPR 2022-00323, Paper 1, 3 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2021).
`
`Unlike Title 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), Title 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which governs joinder, allows
`
`defendants to file IPRs even after one year after they are served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of a patent. Thus, iFIT’s petition and request for joinder were timely. iFIT’s request
`
`to join the petition against the ’521 Patent was driven by the PTAB’s institution of IPR against
`
`that patent, and iFIT’s request for joinder will not delay or alter the schedule in the original IPR
`
`filed by Echelon.
`
`2.
`
`Timing of the Stay Request
`
`This request for a stay is being brought timely, shortly after the PTAB instituted IPR
`
`against the ‘521 Patent and a few weeks after iFIT requested joinder. Such timing weighs strongly
`
`in favor of a stay. “Shortly after the PTAB issue[s] its decision to proceed with a validity trial on
`
`all of the Asserted Claims” is the “ideal time” to file a motion to stay. 454 Life Scis. Corp. v. Ion
`
`Torrent Sys., Inc., No. 15-595-LPS, 2016 WL 6594083 at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2016) (emphasis
`
`added). iFIT makes this motion at the “ideal time,” and this factor supports a stay.
`
`3.
`
`Status of the Review Proceedings
`
`The IPRs against the asserted Peloton patents have already been instituted for all claims of
`
`the patents-in-suit. This shows that the PTAB “is proceeding with all due haste, in compliance
`
`with its statutory obligations, and weighs in favor of granting the stay.” Copy Prot. LLC v. Netflix,
`
`Inc., No. 14-365-LPS, 2015 WL 3799363, at *4 (D. Del. June 17, 2015).
`
`Moreover, absent a good cause to extend, the PTAB is statutorily required to issue a final
`
`written decision in both proceedings no later than by November 18, 2022 such that a stay in this
`
`proceeding would last less than a year. If not stayed, the PTAB may issue a final written decision
`
`invalidating the claims while a trial on the validity of the ’026 and ’521 Patents is proceeding in
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 5324
`
`
`
`this action. Such the nature and brevity of any delay caused by a stay in this case supports granting
`
`a stay.
`
`4.
`
`Relationship Between the Parties
`
`The “relationship between the parties” prong evaluates whether the parties are direct
`
`competitors. Peloton identified the relevant market in its complaint as the “at-home fitness
`
`industry.” D.I. ¶ 114. While iFIT and Peloton are direct competitors in the market for stationary
`
`exercise bicycles, this case mostly involves products across many categories that Peloton does not
`
`compete in. For example, Peloton accuses a variety of ellipticals, rowing machines, incline
`
`trainers, and strength training devices of infringing the ’026 and ’521 patents despite not selling
`
`any products in these categories.
`
`Furthermore, the at-home fitness industry is a highly competitive industry with multiple
`
`players. Peloton previously identified at least two other competitors in Echelon Fitness, LLC and
`
`Flywheel Sports, Inc. 1 An equity analyst previously identified NordicTrack iFIT, SoulCycle,
`
`Echelon, Flywheel, and startups including Mirror and Hydrow as potential additional competitive
`
`offerings. 2 Peloton acknowledges that there are plurality of competitors and asserts, “With
`
`Peloton’s hard-fought success, competitors, including Defendant iFIT, have attempted to free ride
`
`off Peloton’s innovative technology.” D.I. 1 ¶ 6; See also D.I. 1 ¶ 78 (“Because of Peloton’s
`
`success, competitors have brought copycat products to market”). The CEO of Peloton, John Foley,
`
`has acknowledged that more companies, including Barry’s Bootcamp, and Tough Mudder, are
`
`launching fitness courses and competitions.3 The existence of other competitors “may decrease the
`
`
`1 See Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Echelon Fitness, LLC, No. 19-1903-RGA (D. Del.), D.I. 1 at 36;
`Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00390-RSW-RSP, D.I. 1 at 18-19.
`2 iFIT, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1386-RGA (D. Del.), D.I. 12 ¶ 18.
`3 iFIT, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1386-RGA (D. Del.), D.I. 12 Ex. 15.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 5325
`
`
`
`likelihood of [the potential loss of market share and erosion of goodwill] befalling the plaintiff,”
`
`thereby minimizing the weight given to this factor. See Neste Oil OYJ v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC, No.
`
`12-1744-GMS, 2013 WL 3353984, at *3 (D. Del. July 2, 2013) (“The presence of multiple active
`
`firms in the relevant market, however, may decrease the likelihood of such harm befalling the
`
`plaintiff.”); see also Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 193 F. Supp.
`
`3d 345, 352 (D. Del. 2016) (“Here, it is undisputed that while the parties compete for business
`
`against each other in the optical disc drive market, they are but two of many competitors in a very
`
`crowded field”). In sum, Peloton would not be unduly prejudiced by the stay.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In sum, each of the undue prejudice, stage of litigation, and simplification factors strongly
`
`support a stay in this case. iFIT respectfully requests that the Court stay Peloton’s patent
`
`infringement claim pending resolution of the PTAB’s IPRs on the ‘026 patent and the ‘521 patent.
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David R. Wright
`Taylor J. Wright
`Alexis K. Juergens
`Ray Nelson
`Maren Laurence
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`299 South Main Street, Suite 2000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`
`Ruben J. Rodrigues
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199
`
`Pavan K. Agarwal
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`Valerie A. Caras (#6608)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`caras@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for iFIT, Inc.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 215 Filed 01/12/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 5326
`
`
`
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio
`Matthew J. McIntee
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`Joseph A. Loy
`Ryan Kane
`Nathaniel DeLucia
`Matthew B. Hershkowitz
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`
`Robin A. McCue
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`Jonathan E. Moskin
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016-1314
`Dated: January 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`