Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 940
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 20-662 (RGA)
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT
`ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.’S FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Michael Flynn (#5333)
`Andrew Moshos (#6685)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`michael.flynn@mnat.com
`amoshos@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Peloton Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Steven N. Feldman
`Douglas J. Dixon
`Christina V. Rayburn
`Karen Younkins
`Haoxiaohan Cai
`Joseph W. Crusham
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`523 West Sixth Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`(213) 788-7272
`
`Original Filing Date: September 11, 2020
`Redacted Filing Date: September 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 941
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING .......................................................... 1 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 2 
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
` to ICON’s Patent
`Infringement Claims and Mandates Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) ................... 3 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`
` in ICON’s Counterclaims and Should Be
`Considered at This Stage .......................................................................... 3 
`
`
` ........................................ 5 
`
`B. 
`
`Icon’s False Advertising Claims Are Premised on Non-Actionable
`Matters of Opinion and Fail to Identify any False or Misleading
`Statements ........................................................................................................... 11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Applicable False Advertising Standard .................................................. 12 
`
`Statements Concerning “Innovation” Constitute Puffery
`and Have Not Been Alleged to Mislead ................................................. 13 
`
`Statements Concerning “Competition” Constitute Puffery
`and Have Not Been Alleged to Mislead ................................................. 15 
`
`Statements Concerning Music Are Not False or Misleading.................. 16 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`The Statements Are Literally True and Not False ...................... 17 
`
`The Statements Are Not Misleading ........................................... 18 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 20 
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 942
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs. GMBH v. Guidewire Software Inc.,
`581 F. Supp. 2d 654 (D. Del. 2008) .........................................................................................15
`
`Angelo v. NVR, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1150565 (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2019) ..............................................................................5
`
`Appliance Recycling Ctrs. of America, Inc. v. JACO Envtl., Inc.,
`378 F. App’x 652 (9th Cir. May 4, 2010) ................................................................................16
`
`
`................................................................................................10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................13, 15, 16, 17
`
`Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp.,
`608 F. Supp. 2d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................................................................................14
`
`Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc.,
`556 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................14
`
`Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.,
`987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993).....................................................................................................12
`
` ...........................................................................................4
`
`
` ...............................................................................10
`
`Crestron Elecs., Inc. v. Cyber Sound & Sec. Inc.,
`2012 WL 426282 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2012) ..................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
` ..............................................................................6, 9
`
` .......................................................................................11
`
`
`.......................................................................................8, 9
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 943
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Dow Corning Corp. v. Jie Xiao,
`2012 WL 12929735 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2012) ....................................................................19
`
`Ecore Int'l, Inc. v. Downey,
`2015 WL 127316 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2015) ................................................................................20
`
`EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge Pavers, Inc.,
`383 F. Supp. 3d 343 (D.N.J. 2019) ..........................................................................................14
`
`Figy v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .....................................................................................19
`
`
`
` .......................................................................1, 11
`
`In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,
`114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997).....................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`..........................................................................................1
`
`JAM Transp., Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.,
`2012 WL 1134730 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2012) ..............................................................................4
`
`Keel v. Axelrod,
`148 F. Supp. 3d 411 (E.D. Pa. 2015) .......................................................................................13
`
`Metro. Reg’l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc.,
`948 F. Supp. 2d 538 (D. Md. 2013) .........................................................................................20
`
`
`
` .............................................................................5
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
`443 F. Supp. 2d 648 (D. Del. 2006) .........................................................................................12
`
`Mycone Dental Supply Co. v. Creative Nail Design, Inc.,
`2012 WL 3599368 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2012) .............................................................................15
`
`Parker v. Learn Skills Corp.,
`530 F. Supp. 2d 661 (D. Del. 2008) .........................................................................................12
`
`Parks LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc,
`863 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2017).....................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 944
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.,
`653 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................20
`
`Philips N. Am., LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc.,
`2020 WL 1515624 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2020) ....................................................................20
`
`
`........................................................................................................6
`
`
` ...............................................................................................10
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`2009 WL 3366967 (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2009) .............................................................................14
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`632 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D. Del. 2009) .........................................................................................14
`
`Spiel Assocs., Inc. v. Gateway Bookbinding Sys., Ltd.,
`2010 WL 546746 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010)............................................................................16
`
` ........................................................................................5
`
`
`..................................................................................................5
`
`Toro Co. v. Textron, Inc.,
`499 F. Supp. 241 (D. Del. 1980) ..............................................................................................12
`
`Trans USA Prods., Inc. v. Howard Berger Co.,
`2008 WL 852324 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2008) ................................................................................13
`
`
`
` ........................................................................................6
`
`U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia,
`898 F.2d 914 (3d Cir. 1990).....................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`
`
` ....................................................................................6, 8
`
` .................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 945
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Breathasure, Inc.,
`204 F.3d 87 (3d. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................................12
`
`Wellness Publ’g. v. Barefoot,
`2008 WL 108889 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2008) ...................................................................................13
`
` ..............................................................................4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
` .........................................................................11
`
` ..................................................................................10, 11
`
` ........................................................................................11
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 252 ................................................................................................................................4
`
`6 Del. C. § 2531 .............................................................................................................................12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .............................................................................................................................13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ........................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 946
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
`On May 15, 2020, Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”) initiated this action against ICON
`
`Health & Fitness, Inc. (“ICON”) for infringing two of Peloton’s patents and engaging in false
`
`advertising, unfair competition, and deceptive business practices. (D.I. 1.) ICON filed its First
`
`Amended Counterclaims (“FACC”) on August 28, 2020. (D.I. 27.) Peloton now moves to
`
`dismiss Counts I-II of ICON’s FACC completely and Counts III and IV as they relate to
`
`Peloton’s alleged “statements concerning competition,” “innovation,” and “music offerings.”
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`In its FACC, ICON asserts numerous counterclaims that are fatally deficient and compel
`
`dismissal as a matter of law. Most critically, in Counts I and II, ICON alleges that Peloton has
`
`infringed two patents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and dismissing ICON’s counterclaims on the basis of it. In fact, consideration and
`
`early dismissal of such claims is essential here, given the severe prejudice Peloton would suffer
`
`from being forced to spend a massive amount of time and money litigating claims
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, ICON’s FACC asserts fatally deficient false advertising claims, predicated on
`
`Peloton’s alleged “statements concerning competition,” “innovation,” and “music offerings”
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 947
`
`
`
`(Counts III and IV). Although ICON has alleged three categories of purportedly false
`
`advertising, it has not identified a single false or misleading statement of fact by Peloton.
`
`Indeed, ICON’s false advertising claims fail as a matter of law because they are premised
`
`entirely on subjective puffery, or otherwise non-actionable statements of legal opinion.
`
`For these reasons and those detailed below, Peloton respectfully requests that the Court
`
`dismiss Counts I-V of ICON’s FACC as a matter of law.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`In 2014, Peloton revolutionized the at-home fitness market by introducing the Peloton
`
`Bike. (D.I. 27 ¶ 7.) Unlike the boring stationary bikes that came before it, Peloton’s bike
`
`features a sophisticated graphical interface that enables users to take live and on-demand cycling
`
`classes, led by some of the world’s best instructors, from the comfort of their own homes. (Id.)
`
`Peloton’s classes feature a dynamic leaderboard that allows riders to see how their performance
`
`stacks up against all other riders who are currently taking, or have ever taken, the same class, at
`
`every point in the class. (Id.)
`
`Because of its revolutionary bike technology and other innovations, including Peloton’s
`
`treadmill and digital application (the “Peloton Tread” and “Peloton App”), Peloton quickly rose
`
`to the top of the fitness industry. (Id. ¶ 8.) Peloton’s undeniable popularity made traditional
`
`players in the at-home fitness space, like ICON, take note. (Id.) As a result, Peloton has had to
`
`defend and enforce its technology in court both offensively, as against competitors who have
`
`copied Peloton’s patented technology, and defensively, as against non-practicing entities and
`
`fitness equipment manufacturers. (Id. ¶ 8, 67.)
`
` (Declaration of Steven N. Feldman (“Feldman
`
`
`
`Dec.”), Ex. 1 (“
`
`”).)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 948
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In September 2019, many years after Peloton pioneered its interactive leaderboard
`
`technology, ICON announced that it would be releasing a “new” feature: the iFit leaderboard.
`
`(D.I. 1 ¶ 80.) The iFit leaderboard is an almost exact copy of Peloton’s leaderboard. (Id. ¶ 81.)
`
`On May 15, 2020, Peloton filed a complaint against ICON alleging two counts of patent
`
`infringement against 17 infringing ICON products, and false advertisement under the Lanham
`
`Act and the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). (D.I. 1.)
`
`Notably,
`
`, and was
`
`likewise aware that earlier this year, Flywheel, another company with a copycat Peloton
`
`leaderboard, had “sign[ed] a declaration stating that it had copied Peloton and infringed upon its
`
`patents.” (D.I. 27 ¶ 63.) No doubt wishing to avoid a similar result, and seeking to confuse the
`
`issues, ICON filed its counterclaims asserting that Peloton, rather than ICON, is the infringer
`
`(Counts I–II), and that Peloton was the one engaged in false advertising (Counts III–IV).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`to ICON’s Patent Infringement
`Claims and Mandates Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)
`1.
`
`ICON’s Counterclaims and Should Be Considered at This Stage
`Under well-established law, this Court can and should consider
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As Courts in this District have held, although
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
` in
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 949
`
`
`
`
`
` the Court can consider affirmative defenses “on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate
`
`establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint,” Waters Techs. Corp. v.
`
`Aurora SFC Sys. Inc., 2017 WL 3598648, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2017). In making this
`
`determination, the Court is not strictly limited to the pleadings. See id. (considering judicially
`
`noticed document in granting motion to dismiss pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 252 affirmative
`
`defense); see also JAM Transp., Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1134730, at *2 (D.
`
`Del. Mar. 28, 2012) (considering insurance policy “explicitly relied on” in complaint when
`
`granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based affirmative defense). Specifically, the Court can
`
`consider documents “integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.” In re Burlington
`
`Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “The rationale
`
`underlying this exception is that the primary problem raised by looking to documents outside the
`
`complaint—lack of notice to the plaintiff—is dissipated ‘[w]here plaintiff has actual notice . . .
`
`and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint.’” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Here,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1426.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 950
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and “[t]he purpose of this rule is to avoid the situation where a plaintiff with a legally
`
`deficient claim that is based on a particular document can avoid dismissal of that claim by failing
`
`to attach the relied upon document.” Angelo v. NVR, Inc., 2019 WL 1150565, at *4 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 12, 2019) (citation omitted). That is precisely the injustice that would occur here were
`
`ICON permitted to force Peloton into lengthy and expensive discovery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thereby establishing that ICON fails to state plausible claims for patent infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 951
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As this Court has held,
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 952
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` before filing this Motion Peloton sent ICON a
`
`letter explaining that the claims were frivolous. (See Feldman Dec., Ex. 2 (“Peloton’s Ltr.”).)
`
`ICON took almost three weeks to respond, and then provided a response featuring a series of
`
`meritless arguments. (Id., Ex. 3 (“ICON’s Resp. Ltr.”).) Recognizing these arguments are ones
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 953
`
`
`
`ICON will likely set forth in their opposition to this Motion, Peloton addresses each below.
`
`
`
` (ICON’s Resp. Ltr. at 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 954
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And it mandates dismissal.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 955
`
`
`
`2.)
`
`
`
` (ICON’s Resp. Ltr. at 2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 956
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Consequently, ICON fails to state claims for patent infringement and
`
`Counts I and II must be dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`
`Any other result,
`
`including delaying this decision until a later stage of the proceedings, would be an inefficient use
`
`of the Court’s resources and would prejudice Peloton by necessitating time-consuming and
`
`expensive discovery on claims
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Icon’s False Advertising Claims Are Premised on Non-Actionable Matters of
`Opinion and Fail to Identify any False or Misleading Statements
`ICON alleges that Peloton has engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 957
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the DTPA, 6 Del. C. § 2531, with respect to several categories of
`
`statements, three of which ICON refers to as Peloton’s “statements concerning innovation,”
`
`“statements concerning competition,” and “statements concerning its music offerings.” (D.I. 27
`
`at 18, 23, 25.) However, none of these three categories of statements are actionable, as ICON
`
`has not identified a single Peloton advertisement that is false or misleading, and because all of
`
`Peloton’s statements constitute non-actionable opinions as a matter of law.
`
`1.
`Applicable False Advertising Standard
`“To establish a Lanham Act claim based on a false or misleading representation of a
`
`product, the plaintiff must show that 1) the defendant has made false or misleading statements as
`
`to his own product [or to another’s]; 2) there is actual deception or at least a tendency to deceive
`
`a substantial portion of the intended audience; 3) the deception is material in that it is likely to
`
`influence purchasing decisions; 4) the advertised goods traveled in interstate commerce; and
`
`5) that there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will,
`
`etc.” Warner-Lambert Co. v. Breathasure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87, 91-92 (3d. Cir. 2000).
`
`Importantly, “[o]nly statements of fact capable of being proven false are actionable under
`
`the Lanham Act.” Parker v. Learn Skills Corp., 530 F. Supp. 2d 661, 679 (D. Del. 2008).
`
`Opinion statements and puffery, i.e., “an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad,
`
`vague, and commendatory language,” must be “understood as an expression of the seller’s
`
`opinion only,” and cannot give rise to liability. Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939, 945
`
`(3d Cir. 1993) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`Because the elements of claims under the Lanham Act are similar to those under the
`
`DTPA, courts often consider them jointly. See, e.g., Toro Co. v. Textron, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 241,
`
`249 n.17 (D. Del. 1980). A court may dismiss claims under both statutes as a matter of law. See,
`
`e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 648, 653 (D. Del. 2006) (holding
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 958
`
`
`
`that the DTPA allegations “fail for the same reasons as the Lanham Act claim fails”).
`
`Further, courts in the Third Circuit hold false advertising claims to an “intermediate”
`
`pleading standard, between Rules 8 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
`
`Wellness Publ’g. v. Barefoot, 2008 WL 108889, at *15 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2008) (“[P]olicies which
`
`underlie Rule 9[ . . .] are equally applicable to the type of misrepresentation claims presented in
`
`plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim.”). “The slightly heightened pleading requirement is necessary in
`
`Lanham Act claims because, in litigation in which one party is charged with making false
`
`statements, it is important that the party charged be provided with sufficiently detailed
`
`allegations regarding the nature of the alleged falsehoods to allow him to make a proper
`
`defense.” Trans USA Prods., Inc. v. Howard Berger Co., 2008 WL 852324, at *5 (D.N.J. Mar.
`
`28, 2008). Regardless, ICON’s claims are deficient under any pleading standard. See Keel v.
`
`Axelrod, 148 F. Supp. 3d 411, 422 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (failure to plead “a plausible fact” regarding a
`
`necessary Lanham Act element deemed fatal (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).)
`
`2.
`
`Statements Concerning “Innovation” Constitute Puffery and Have
`Not Been Alleged to Mislead
`ICON claims that Peloton made false and misleading statements regarding its innovation.
`
`(D.I. 27 ¶ 58). Specifically, ICON pleads that Peloton has misrepresented that it is a “very very
`
`hardcore technology company,” and has made “many other public statements about being an
`
`innovator and ‘building something that’s the first of its kind.’” (Id.) For three independent
`
`reasons, these “innovation” statements cannot support any false advertising liability.
`
`First, ICON’s “innovation” allegations relate solely to non-actionable puffery. The
`
`“innovation” statements (i.e., that Peloton is a “very very hardcore technology company,” and
`
`“building something that’s the first of its kind”) are obviously subjective, non-verifiable
`
`statements of personal opinion. Unsurprisingly, such claims of innovation are routinely
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 959
`
`
`
`dismissed. See, e.g., Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 632 F. Supp. 2d 362, 367 (D. Del.
`
`2009) (“‘Improved’ and ‘innovative’ . . . are opinions and cannot be proved to be false.”).
`
`What is more, Peloton’s characterization of itself as a “tech company” is a claim that it
`
`was entitled to make—regardless of the status of its patents and regardless of whether Peloton
`
`owned any patents at all. See Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp., 608 F. Supp. 2d 454,
`
`463 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (granting dismissal because defendant’s “self-described status as a news-
`
`gathering organization,” despite employing no reporters, “is an inadequate basis for a Lanham
`
`Act claim” because the definition of a “news service” did “not lend itself to absolute criteria”).
`
`In sum, statements concerning innovation are precisely “the type of generalized and vague
`
`claims that constitute puffery,” and cannot give rise to liability. EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge
`
`Pavers, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 343, 349-50 (D.N.J. 2019).
`
`Second, ICON alleges—without referencing a single advertisement that contains any
`
`such statement—that Peloton made a false statement that “it has invented the technology that
`
`makes up the Peloton platform.” (D.I. 27 ¶ 59.) ICON asserts that Peloton had “simply copied
`
`pre-existing technology and stolen ideas from other companies.” (Id.) Even if Peloton had made
`
`a claim that it was the inventor, ICON’s claim fails as a matter of law. The Lanham Act “does
`
`not encompass misrepresentations about the source of the ideas embodied in the object.” Parks
`
`LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc, 863 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation
`
`omitted). Accordingly, “false attribution of the authorship of an invention or innovation is not an
`
`actionable false advertisement under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.” Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon
`
`Mfg. Corp., 2009 WL 3366967, at *1 (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2009) (claim by defendant that it
`
`developed an “innovative” wiper blade was not false advertising as a matter of law). To hold
`
`otherwise would create an impermissible “overlap between the Lanham and Patent Acts.” Baden
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 960
`
`
`
`Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc., 556 F.3d 1300, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (no Lanham Act liability
`
`for claim by basketball maker that it was the “innovator of dual-cushion technology”).
`
`Third, ICON’s “innovation” allegations fail for the additional reason that ICON has not
`
`plausibly alleged that the relevant public was actually misled. “In this regard, [ICON] was
`
`required to allege facts suggesting that the marketplace was actually confused or misled.”
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs. GMBH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 654, 667 (D. Del.
`
`2008). ICON’s FACC however, offers only “threadbare recitals” of this required element.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (see D.I. 27 ¶ 59 (alleging that Peloton’s “statements have influenced
`
`consumers’ purchasing decisions”).) Its pleadings do not even allege how, if at all, any at-issue
`
`representations were ever communicated to any consumers. See Mycone Dental Supply Co. v.
`
`Creative Nail Design, Inc., 2012 WL 3599368, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2012) (“[A] plaintiff at the
`
`very least must identify some medium or means through which the defendant disseminated
`
`information to a particular class of consumers.’” (quotation marks and citations omitted)).
`
`Having failed to do this, ICON’s “innovation” allegations must be dismissed in their entirety.
`
`3.
`
`Statements Concerning “Competition” Constitute Puffery and Have
`Not Been Alleged to Mislead
`ICON’s “competition” allegations also do not hold up to scrutiny. (D.I. 27, at 25.) For
`
`these allegations, ICON relies upon two partial quotations allegedly made by Peloton: “Nobody
`
`else provides them, so we’re kind of a category of one,” and another by Peloton CEO, John
`
`Foley, that Peloton purchased a manufacturer to “get cost advantage over any future competitors
`
`that we don’t have yet.” (Id. ¶ 65.) According to ICON, these statements show that Peloton has
`
`“engaged in [a] pattern of false and misleading statements regarding its innovation as a first-to-
`
`market company and that it lacks any competitors.” (Id.) Any critical review, however, reveals
`
`that these statements do not support claims for false advertising.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 961
`
`
`
`First, even if Peloton’s statements could be interpreted to mean what ICON asserts, any
`
`such representations would constitute non-actionable statements of personal opinion. ICON
`
`alleges that consumers would understand Peloton’s statements as claims that Peloton “lacks any
`
`competitors,” and is a “first-to-market company.” (D.I. 27 ¶ 65.) Even accepting the premise of
`
`this unsupported, conclusory allegation as true, claims that a company “lead[s] the way . . . for
`
`the industry,” are “hardly objective, unambiguous statements of fact,” and cannot be either
`
`literally false or misleading. Spiel Assocs., Inc. v. Gateway Bookbinding Sys., Ltd., 2010 WL
`
`546746, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010) (such statements are “inherently subjective puffery”).
`
`Indeed, courts have routinely rejected claims based on statements that “no other
`
`company” could supply the advertised good or service prior to the defendant’s entry into the
`
`market. See, e.g., Appliance Recycling Ctrs. of America, Inc. v. JACO Envtl., Inc., 378 F. App’x
`
`652, 654 (9th Cir. May 4, 2010). “These kinds of broad, vague claims to be an industry leader
`
`simply cannot be proven ‘literally false’; they are inherently subjective puffery” and cannot
`
`sustain a claim. Spiel, 2010 WL 546746, at *11.
`
`Second, ICON has not pleaded facts plausibly establishing that Peloton’s statements
`
`actually deceived or are likely to deceive a substantial segment of the intended audience.
`
`ICON’s claim that Peloton “create[d] a belief amongst consumers that there is no alternative to
`
`Peloton,” (D.I. 27 ¶ 65), is a “naked assertion[] devoid of further factual development.” Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. at 678. What is more, it is a conclusory assertion that defies common sense. ICON has
`
`alleged no fact indicating that sophisticated consumers considering a connected fitness purchase
`
`could be misled into thinking that any one company is the only company in the market. For
`
`these reasons, ICON’s “competition” claims must be dismissed in full.
`
`4.
`Statements Concerning Music Are Not False or Misleading
`ICON’s final false advertising claim relies upon six Instagram posts to allege that Peloton
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00662-RGA Document 43 Filed 09/18/20 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 962
`
`
`
`has advertised music that it purportedly did not have proper rights to. (D.I. 27 ¶¶ 44–57.) In
`
`some of those posts, Peloton advertised its Artist Series classes; in others, Peloton advertised the
`
`fact that users can interact with playlists. However, none of the posts identified by ICON
`
`contain any false or misleading statements, or contain any advertisements of or references to
`
`music that Peloton did not have the rights to, and ICON’s claims fail as a matter of law.
`
`a.
`The Statements Are Literally True and Not False
`Artist Series Posts: ICON’s f