Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 52
`Date: January 25, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ECHELONFITNESS MULTIMEDIA, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL,and
`ALYSSA A. FINAMORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINAMORE,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. $ 318(a)
`
`ORDER
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`37 CFR. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 52
`Date: January 25, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ECHELONFITNESS MULTIMEDIA, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`PELOTON INTERACTIVE,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL,and
`ALYSSA A. FINAMORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINAMORE,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. $ 318(a)
`
`ORDER
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`37 CFR. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC (‘Petitioner’) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-20 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,322,315 B2 (“the 315 patent”) (Ex. 1001). Pet. 1. Peloton
`
`Interactive, Inc. (“Patent Owner’) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper8,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”), as well as a Disclaimer (Ex. 2001). According to the
`
`Disclaimer, Patent Owner disclaimed claims 1-4, 9-14, and 19-20 of the
`
`°315 patent. Ex. 2001, 1.
`
`On January 26, 2021, we issued a Decision on institution (Paper 13,
`
`“Inst. Dec.”). In the Decision, we granted institution of an inter partes
`
`review of claims 5-8 and 15-18, which are the claims that remain in this
`
`proceeding in view of Patent Owner’s Disclaimer. Inst. Dec. 51.
`
`Duringtrial, Patent Ownerfiled a Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 35, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Sur-reply (Paper 44, “Sur-reply”).
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 45, “Mot.”’).
`
`Patent Ownerfiled an Opposition (Paper 47).
`
`Oral argument took place October 14, 2021. We entered the transcript
`
`(Paper 51) into the record.
`
`This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude Petitioner has proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 5—8 and 15-18 are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies the real parties in interest as: itself; North Castle
`
`Partners, I.LC; Echelon Fitness, LLC; Viatek Consumer Products Group
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Inc.; Echelon Studio LLC; Echelon Holdings, LLC; NCP-Echelon, LLC;
`
`Special Situations Investing Group II, LLC; StoneBridge 2020, L.P.;
`
`Fitness 2020 Offshore, Inc.; GF PYCR; Primo Secondo LLC; The Albright
`
`Family Rev. Trust; and Echelon Management 2, LLC. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1-2;
`
`Paper 10, 1-2. Patent Owneridentifies itself as the real party in interest.
`
`Paper4, 2.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owneridentify the following related matters
`
`involving the ’315 patent:
`
`Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Echelon Fitness, LLC,
`No. 1:19-cv-01903-RGA(D.Del. filed Oct. 8, 2019);
`
`Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00390-RWS-RSP(E.D. Tex. dismissed
`Feb. 6, 2020); and
`
`Flywheel Sports, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01411 (PTAB dismissed Feb. 3, 2020).
`
`Pet. 1-3; Paper4,2.
`
`The parties identify the following patents and patent applications as
`
`related matters: U.S. Patent No. 9,174,085 B2; U.S. Patent No. 9,233,276
`
`B1; U.S. Patent No. 9,861,855 B2; U.S. Patent No. 10,022,590 B2; and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,486,026 B2. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2-3. Patent Owner further
`
`identifies the following patents and patent applications as related matters:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,639,521 B2; U.S. Design Patent Application
`
`No. 29/660,009; U.S. Patent Application No. 16/866,499; and U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 16/902,195. Paper4, 3.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Petitioner identifies as related matters the following proceedings
`involving the related patents:
`
`Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00317-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. dismissed
`Feb. 6, 2020) (involving U.S. Patent Nos. 10,022,590 B2 and
`10,486,026 B2);
`
`Flywheel Sports, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00294 (PTAB dismissed Feb. 3, 2020) (challenging -
`U.S. Patent No. 9,174,085 B2);
`
`Flywheel Sports, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00295 (PTAB dismissed Feb. 3, 2020) (challenging
`U.S. Patent No. 9,233,276 B1);
`
`FlywheelSports, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00564 (PTAB dismissed Feb. 3, 2020) (challenging
`U.S. Patent No. 9,861,855 B2); and
`
`Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01187 (PTAB filed June 29, 2020) (challenging U.S.
`Patent No. 10,022,590 B2).
`
`Pet. 2-3. The following proceedings also involve the related patents:
`
`Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01541 (PTABfiled Sept. 1, 2020) (challenging U.S.
`Patent No. 10,486,026 B2);
`
`Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00848 (PTAB filed May 3, 2021) (challenging U.S.
`Patent No. 10,639,521 B2); and
`
`iFIT, INC. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., IPR2022-00323 (PTAB
`filed Dec. 17, 2021) (challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,639,521
`B2).
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`C.
`
`The ’315 Patent
`
`According to the ’315 patent, “the invention relates to a system and
`
`method for providing streaming and on-demandexercise classes.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:29-31. The invention “comprises networked exercise systems and
`
`methods whereby one or morestationary exercise bicycles .
`
`.
`
`. are equipped
`
`with an associated local system that allows the user to fully participate in
`
`live instructor-led or recorded cycling classes from any location that can
`
`access a suitable communications network.” /d. at 4:7-13. Figure 1,
`
`reproduced below,showsa local exercise system.
`400 -.
`
`104
`
`NIN
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Figure 1 showslocal system 100 comprising stationary bike 102 with
`
`integrated or connected digital hardware includingat least one display
`
`screen 104. Id. at 4:62-65; see also id. at 3:13—14 (describing Figure 1 as a
`
`rear perspective view of a stationary bike). Bike 102 may also be equipped
`
`with various sensors to measure data relating to user performance metrics,
`
`such as speed,resistance, power, cadence, heart rate, and hydration level.
`
`Id. at 10:5-9.
`
`Userinterface 200 maybe presented ondisplay screen 104 to allow
`
`the user to managethe experience, including selecting information to be
`
`displayed and arranging how muchinformation is displayed on the system.
`
`Id. at 7:1-5. User interface 200 may provide a homescreen that provides
`
`basic information about the system and available options. Jd. at 7:15—17.
`
`Figure 5, reproduced below, showsthe homescreen.
`
`BiG
`
`os
`
`an
`en
`
`/
`
`E rate
`
`oan
`’ —
`
`;
`
`Serer Fauve iteat 0x07
`haus Pang hebgiriieg
`
`wf
`
`Lane
`
` oFBamaye
`NEXT uve03:21}* Csinciss-)|fFFuseEes. |Manheimer
`
`
`
`
`
`JN) 45 Mia Pure Cycle
`“
`
`;dearvelfeochdcoeaerie
`jeomemsasereASR
`\ 4 WO merengueret
`, a nary
`
`AEE tayperear ona skage,
`
`I
`
`20
`
`‘
`
`LiveClassGchedela
`
`&
`orn”
`ane
`
`y
`No
`
`ni
`
`0
`
`_
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Figure 5 is an illustration of a user interface home screen. Id. at 3:23—24.
`
`Via the homescreen,a user can select amonglive classes 202 and archived
`
`classes 204. Id. at 7:32—35, 45—48, Fig.5.
`
`Whena class is being played on display screen 104 through user
`
`interface 200, the primary video feed may be shown asthe background video
`
`full-screen or in a sub-window onthe screen. Jd. at 7:55-59. Figure 8,
`
`reproduced below,showsthe user interface screen displaying a cycling
`
`"
`
`.
`
`an
`
`wr yl
`| Leaderboard ©)
`
`Seope
`See cceTua?
`
`
`
`class.
`
`PlRacieic
`aT
`Sam
`Manhaimer
`
`vt
`
`'e
`
`a
`
`Figure 8 is an illustration of a user interface screen displayingalive or
`
`on-demand cycling class underway. Jd. at 3:31-33. Primary window 220
`
`showsthe live or archived class that the user selected. Id. at 8:8—9.
`
`Performance metric windows 222, 224, 226, 228, 230 show specific
`
`performance metrics for the user’s current ride, past rides, or other
`
`performanceinformation, including distance, pedal cadence, poweroutput,
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`resistance, calories burned, and heart rate. Jd. at 8:9-14, Fig.8.
`
`Leaderboard 234 showsthe user’s performance in comparisonto others
`
`taking the sameclass. Jd. at 8:38—40, Fig. 8. Secondary window 240 may
`
`display a range of information and content, such as the nameofthe user and
`
`the nameof the current class. Jd. at 9:54—56.
`
`As explained in the ’315 patent, “the system can provide for
`
`simultaneousparticipation by multiple users in a recorded class,
`synchronized by the system and allowingaccess to all of the same
`communication and data sharing features that are available for a live class.”
`
`Id. at 13:30-34. As aresult, “the riders simultaneously participating in the
`
`same archived class can compete against each other, as well as against past
`
`performancesor ‘ghost’ riders for the sameclass.” Jd. at 13:34-38. “[T]o
`
`provide accurate data regarding class performancefor the leaderboard,
`
`including archived performancedata, each class may havea specific ‘go’ or
`start signal that serves as the starting time point for the data comparison.” ©
`
`Id. at 13:57-61, Fig. 17. “Archived performance data may be calibrated to
`
`the same ‘go’ signalas live participant data, allowing for comparative data
`
`to be presented through a leaderboard or other display through the end of the
`
`class.” Id, at 13:61-65.
`
`D.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-20 of the ’315 patent. Pet. 1.
`
`Subsequentto the Petition, Patent Ownerfiled a Disclaimer in which Patent
`
`Ownerdisclaimed claims 1-4, 9-14, and 19-20. Ex. 2001, 1; see also
`
`Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner Peloton hasstatutorily disclaimed
`
`claims 14, 9-14, and 19-20 of the ’315 Patent, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.321(a).”). Consequently, only claims 5-8 and 15-18 remainin this
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be
`
`instituted based on disclaimed claims.); Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the
`
`effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewedas
`
`though the disclaimed claims had neverexisted in the patent.”’).
`
`Claims 5—8 depend from independentclaim 1, and claims 15-18
`
`depend from independentclaim 11. Ex. 1001, 16:30-52, 18:10—30. Apart
`
`from their dependency, claims 5-8 are similar to claims 15—18, respectively.
`
`Jd.
`
`\ndependentclaim 1 and claim 5, reproduced below,are illustrative of
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`1. A method for displaying live and archived exercise
`classes comprising:
`displaying information about available live and archived
`exercise classes that can be accessed bya first user
`via a digital communication network on a display
`screen at a first location, wherein the first user can
`select either a live exercise class or select among a
`plurality of archived exercise classes;
`receiving a selection of one of the available live or
`archived exercise classes by the first user;
`outputting digital video and audio content comprising the
`selected exercise class at the first location to the first
`
`user;
`determining one or more performance parameters for the
`first user at the first location at a plurality of points
`in the selected cxcrcise class;
`displaying at least one performance parameterfor thefirst
`userat the first location on the display screen; and
`dynamically displaying one or more performance
`parameters for a seconduserat a second location on
`the display screen at the first location such that at
`least one of the performance parameters forthefirst
`userat the plurality of pointsin the selected exercise
`class andat least one of the performance paramctcrs
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`for the second userat the samepointsin the selected
`exercise class are presented for comparison on the
`display screen at the first location.
`
`5. The method of claim 1, further comprising requesting
`the digital video content, audio content and class participant
`content associated with the selected exercise class from a server
`through the digital communications network, wherein the class
`participant content comprises content associated with the second
`user.
`
`Td. at 15:52-16:11, 16:30-35.
`
`k.
`
` Asserted Grounds and Evidence
`
`For the claims remaining in the ’315 patent in view of Patent Owner’s
`
`Disclaimer, i.e., claims 5—8 and 15-18, Petitioner asserts the following
`grounds of unpatentability listed in the table below.!
`
`' Petitioner originally challenged claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Watterson and Hurwitz; claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Hurwitz, Garcia, and Martens; and claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Hurwitz, Garcia, Martens, and Loveland. Pet. 5—6.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged|35 U.S.C. §”
`
`
`5-8, 15-18
`
`
`5-8, 15-18
`
`
`Pet. 5—6. In support of these asserted grounds of unpatentability, Petitioner
`
`submits Declarations of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1056). Patent
`
`Owner deposedand cross-examined Dr. Jeffay and submitstranscripts of
`
`Dr. Jeffay’s depositions (Exs. 2006, 2026).
`
`Patent Ownerrelies on a Declaration of Henry H. Houh (Ex. 2002).
`
`Petitioner deposed and cross-examined Dr. Houh and submitsa transcript of
`
`Dr. Houh’s deposition (Ex. 1063). Patent Owneralso relies on a Declaration
`
`of Jim Rutberg (Ex. 2004). Petitioner deposed and cross-examined
`
`? The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), amendedcertain sectionsof this statute, including
`§ 103, and the effective date of the relevant amendmentis March 16, 2013.
`The ’315 patent issued from anapplication filed on July 16, 2018, and
`claims priority to several applications, the earliest of which wasfiled on
`July 31, 2012. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (63), (60). The filing date of the °315
`patent is after the effective date of the AIA amendmentto thestatute, but the
`’315 patent claimspriority to an application filed before the effective date.
`The applicable version of the statute, however, does not affect this Decision.
`See, e.g., Pet. 10 (“The references relied uponin this Petition predate the
`earliest possible effective filing date of the ’315 patent, and thus each
`qualifies as prior art regardless of whether pre-AIA or AIA statutory
`provisions apply.”(citing Ex. 1003 4 24)).
`3 Watterson et al., US 7,628,730 B1, issued Dec. 8, 2009 (“Watterson’’)
`(Ex. 1007).
`4 Hurwitz et al., US 7,874,957 B2, issued Jan. 25, 2011 (“Hurwitz”)
`(Ex. 1004).
`5 Baccarella-Garcia, US 201 1/0224999 A1, published Sept. 15, 2011
`(“Garcia”) (Ex. 1005).
`© Martens, US 7,736,272 B2, issued June 15, 2010 (“Martens”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Mr. Rutberg and submits a transcript of Mr. Rutberg’s deposition
`
`(Ex. 1057).
`
`Il. ANALYSIS OF ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`A.
`
`Principles ofLaw
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the pertinent
`
`time to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed subject
`
`matter pertains. The question of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
`
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the
`
`scope and contentoftheprior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter andthe priorart; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4)
`objective evidence of nonobviousness,i.e., secondary considerations.’
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`Anobviousnessanalysis must include a reason, based uponrational
`
`underpinnings, why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. In re Magnum Oil
`
`Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Tosatisfy its
`
`burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner .. . must. .
`
`. articulate specific
`
`reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” (citing KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
`
`(2007))). The requirement of a reason to combineis a safeguard against
`
`hindsight bias, which is characterized by the “temptation to read into the
`
`7Tn this proceeding, neither party has presented evidence or argument
`directed to secondary considerations.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421
`
`(quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 36).
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The levelof ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which
`weviewtheprior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The POSITAis “a hypothetical person
`
`whois presumed to knowtherelevantpriorart.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
`
`1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v.
`
`Jeffrey—Allen Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may considercertain
`
`factors, including the “type of problems encounteredin theart; prior art
`
`solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workersin
`
`the field.” Jd. (quoting Custom Accessories, 807 F.2d at 962). “In a given
`
`case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may
`
`predominate.” Jd. (citing Custom Accessories, 807 F.2d at 962-63).
`
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`‘would have “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or comparable academic experience andat
`
`least two years of practical experience in the design of network-based
`
`applications and/or equipmentinterface systems for providing multi-media
`
`content such as on-line exercise classes.” Pet. 8-9 (citing Ex. 1003 § 38).
`
`. require at least a
`.
`Patent Ownerargues“[t]he correct level of skill would .
`Bachelor’s degree and/or least two years’ experience in the exercise field in
`addition to the technical requirementslisted by Dr. Jeffay.” PO Resp. 6 n.2
`
`(citing Ex. 2002 J¥ 40-52; Ex. 2004 {J 32-44).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`Patent Ownercriticizes Petitioner’s proposed POSITAfor lacking any
`
`training or professional experience in the exercise field, which, according to
`
`Patent Owner,is the relevant art. Jd. at 3-7; Sur-reply 1-2, 4-5. Patent
`
`Ownerasserts “[w]ithout an understanding of the equipment and practices in
`
`the exercise field that comes with relevant education and/or professional
`
`experience, [Petitioner’s POSITA] had no creditable basis to conclude what
`
`motivates people to exercise.” PO Resp. 6-7; see also Sur-reply 1-2
`
`(arguing Petitioncr’s POSITA hasnobasis for determining whether or how
`to enhance the benefits of group exercise and promote a healthy sense of
`
`competition). Patent Owneradditionally argues Dr. Jeffay lacks
`
`professional experience or education in the exercise field such thathis
`
`testimony on matters relating to exercise is due no weight. PO Resp. 7
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 125-153); Sur-reply 2-4.
`
`In reply, Petitioner maintains a POSITA doesnot needtrainer
`qualifications, i.e., an exercise field degree and/or two years’ exercise field
`
`experience. Reply 1-7. Petitioner asserts “the art relates to
`
`Internet-connected computerized exercise equipment design, and anartisan
`
`would not need trainer qualifications to understand that competition and
`
`working out in a group motivates people to exercise.” Jd. at 2. According to
`
`Petitioner, “[i]t was well-knownthat group settings and competition
`
`motivated people to exercise,” and “[t]he problems and solutions are focused
`
`on how to realize these known motivations in various internet-connected
`
`computer systems.” Jd. at 6 (citing Ex. 1056 { 2).
`
`The parties’ arguments raise not only the issue of the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, but also Dr. Jeffay’s credibility as a POSITA. Beginning
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`with the latter, our Trial Practice Guide® explainsthat there is no
`
`requirement of a perfect match between a declarant’s experience and the
`
`relevant field. TPG 34 (citing SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594
`
`F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). We generally permit testimony where a
`
`declarant’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the
`
`Board understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Jd. (citing
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)). Given his doctorate degree in computer science and
`
`25 years’ of experience in the design and implementation of network-based
`
`applications, including network-based applications for providing
`
`multi-media content for real-time synchronousinteraction (Ex. 1003 { 41),
`we find Dr. Jeffay’s testimony helpful in deciding factualissuesin this
`proceeding. Moreover, when assigning weightto a declarant’s testimony,
`
`weconsider the underlying facts or data upon whichthe testimonyis based.
`
`TPG 40-41. In our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we
`
`weigh Dr. Jeffay’s testimony accordingly.
`
`Turningto the level of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ proposed
`levels of ordinary skill in the art differ in that Patent Owner’s proposed level
`of ordinary skill in the art adds the requirementfor a bachelor’s degree
`
`and/or least two years’ experience in the exercise field. Patent Owner’s
`
`basis for the additional requirementis that an understanding of the
`equipment and practices in the exercise field is necessary to know what
`motivates people to exercise. We, however, agree with Petitioner that the
`
`8 USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`November2019, https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated
`(“TPG”); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, November 2019
`Edition, 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019) (notifying the public of the
`availability of the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`problemsandsolutions in the art are not directed to figuring out what
`
`motivates people to exercise, but rather to developing and implementing
`
`network-connected computer systemsto foster a group activity and
`
`competition, which are known motivations for exercise.
`
`According to the ’315 patent:
`
`Humans are competitive by nature, striving to improve their
`performance both as compared to their ownprior efforts and as
`comparedto others. Humansare also drawn to games andother
`diversions, such that even tasks that a person may find difficult
`or annoying can becomeappealing if different gaming elements
`are introduced.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:35-40. The ’315 patent describes a problem as “[e]xisting home
`
`and gym-based exercise systems and methods frequently lack key features
`
`that allow participants to compete with each other and that gamify exercise
`
`activities.” Jd. at 1:40-43. The ’315 patent further describes that a solution
`
`is “a stationary bike that incorporates multimedia inputs and outputs forlive
`
`streaming or archivedinstructional content, socially-networked audio and
`
`video chat, networked performance metrics and competition capabilities,
`
`along with a range of gamification features.” Jd. at 1:64—2:2.
`
`Like the ’315 patent, the asserted references disclose using
`
`network-connected computer systemsto solve the problem ofexercise
`
`equipmentnot effectively providing competition. Watterson, for instance,
`discloses thal “group settings promote a healthy sense of competition among
`
`group members,”and that “[i]t would .
`
`.
`
`. be a definite advancementin the
`
`art of home exercise equipmentto provide the desirable benefits of group
`
`exercise in a homesetting.” Ex. 1007, 1:65-66, 2:17—20. To solve the
`
`problem of homeexercise equipmentlacking the benefits of group exercise,
`Watterson discloses providing an exercise device “that is capable of
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`enabling a user to communicate with a distantly located trainer” and “that
`
`communicates with a communication system that enablesreal-time
`
`communication withatrainer or alternatively access to one or more stored
`
`exercise programs.” Jd. at 2:55-60. Similarly, Hurwitz discloses:
`
`[E]ven if a person is merely exercising for general health or fun,
`a competitive environment can add a much needed edge and can
`motivate people to higher levels of performance. Competition,
`however, requires at least one additional person, with the same
`or similar type equipment(e.g. to race bicycles, all competitors
`need to have access to bicycles). This can present another
`barricade to those wishing to competitively race or exercise, as
`now anentire additional set of equipmentis needed.
`
`Ex. 1004, 1:30—38. Hurwitz further discloses a solution is an exercise
`
`device, such as a bicycle, equipped with measurement device having a
`
`wireless connection to a computer that permits processing of data
`
`relating to a user’s progress and displaying the data on an electronic
`
`display to enable users to engage in virtual races and other group
`
`activities. Id. at 2:22—28.
`
`After considering the factors for determining the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, particularly the type of problems encounteredin the art and
`
`prior art solutions to those problems, we find the factors support Petitioner’s
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art and do not warrant an additional requirement
`
`for a bachelor’s degree and/or least two years’ experience in the exercise
`
`field. Moreover, given the background andnature of the teachingsin the
`
`prior art, we are not persuadedthat a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`need a specific bachelor’s degree or significant time working in the exercise
`
`field to understand the nature and importance of connectivity and
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`competition in group settings. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s level of
`
`ordinary skill in theart.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Weinterpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that
`
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Underthis standard, we construe
`
`the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution
`
`history pertainingto the patent.” Jd. Furthermore, we expressly construe the
`
`claims to the extent necessary to determine whetherPetitioner has proven
`
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See Nidec Motor Corp.v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“[W]e need only construe terms‘that are in controversy, and only to the
`999
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthe claims should be construed to require a
`
`method that displays both live and archived classes. PO Resp. 7-12. Patent
`
`Owneralso argues the recited phrase “live and archived exercise classes”
`should be construed to require a humaninstructor. Jd. at 12-16.
`
`Additionally, the parties propose express constructions for the claim term
`
`“Icaderboard.” Jd. at 16-18; Reply 7-8; Sur-reply 6-8. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner construes “leaderboard”as “‘a display of those leading in a
`
`contest” (Reply 7), whereas Patent Ownerconstrues “leaderboard”as “‘a
`
`numerically ordered list ranking users by their performance” (PO Resp. 16)
`
`and further argues “the district court effectively agreed with [Patent Owner]
`
`(construing leaderboard as ‘a scoreboard containing a list in ranked order of
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`someorall of the users’)” (Sur-reply 6). Nonetheless, for the reasonsset
`forth in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we determine
`
`that no claim term requires an express construction forus to ascertain
`
`whetherPetitioner has shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable
`
`because Petitioner has met its burden even if we apply Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed constructions.
`
`D.
`
`—Obviousness Based on Watterson and Hurwitz
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner challenges claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103, contending the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over
`
`Watterson and Hurwitz. Pet. 15-42. In view of Patent Owner’s Disclaimer
`
`(Ex. 2001), however, only claims 5—8 and 15-18 remain. The parties
`
`dispute whether these remaining claims are unpatentable over Watterson and
`
`Hurwitz. PO Resp. 19-46; Reply 9-19; Sur-reply 9-22.
`
`Webegin our analysis of this asserted ground of unpatentability with
`
`an overview of each of Watterson and Hurwitz. We next discuss the parties’
`
`arguments for independent claims 1 and 11, from which claims 5—8
`
`and 15-18 depend. Wethen turn to the parties’ arguments for claims 5-8
`
`and 15-18.
`
`1.
`
`Watterson
`
`Watterson “relates to exercise equipment and, more specifically, to
`systems and methodsfor providing improved exercise devices in
`combination with other users and/oralive or stored trainer via a
`
`communications network.” Ex. 1007, 1:43-46. Exercises devices may be
`
`“any type of device that takes the form of an exercise machine, including,
`
`but not limited to, treadmills, exercise cycles, .. . andelliptical or striding
`
`19
`
`
`
`NETHORK
`
`
`Co samaGames
`+p een=
`
`
`
`
`TRIR PARTY a?
`
`GPTIONAL
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`exercise devices.” Jd. at 6:24—29. Figure 1, reproduced below, shows
`
`exercise devices connected via a communications network.
`
`
`
`FIG.
`
`4
`
`Figure 1 is an exercise system. Jd. at 5:7—8; see also Figs. 10-11 (depicting
`
`the exercise system of Figure 1 as functional block diagrams). Exercise
`
`system 10 comprises one or more exercise devices, such as
`
`treadmill 12a—12n, in communication with one or moretrainers at
`
`treadmill 20a—20n via translator device 13 and computer 14 that
`
`communicate with network 16. Id. at 6:30-42. Network 16 facilitates
`
`communication of treadmill 12 with a live trainer on treadmill 20 and/or
`
`communication system 18, which is, for example, a website. Jd. at 6:45—-47.
`
`Communication system 18 assists communication between a user on
`
`treadmill 12 and either a live trainer on treadmill 20 or somethird party 21.
`
`Id. at 6:47-50. Optionally, communication system 18 acts as a stored trainer
`
`or connects to a stored trainer. Jd. at 6:50—52.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`System 10 enables exercise programming to be transmitted from a
`
`trainer at treadmill 20, or alternatively from communication system 18, to a
`
`user at treadmill 12. Jd. at 7:19-22. The programming may include
`
`motivational content, which may be an audio/video presentation of a
`
`personaltrainer and others engagedinaseries of exercises or a live-on-live,
`
`real-time exercise program presented by a trainer. Id. at 7:25—-26, 37-46.
`
`Treadmill 12 includes control panel 22 (id. at 8:24—26), whichis
`
`shownin Figure 6, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 6 is a perspective illustration of a control panel. Jd. at 5:23-24. As
`shownin Figure 6, control panel 22 includes iFit.com button 82, whichacts
`as both a selector and an indicator of connectivity of treadmill 12 to
`
`communication system 18 and treadmill 20. Jd. at 9:50-54. Control
`
`panel 22 also includes input devices, such as integrally-formed mouse 100
`and a touch-sensitive video display to allow a user to operate treadmill 12,
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01186
`Patent 10,322,315 B2
`
`access communication system 18, and obtain information via network 16.
`Id. at 12:33-49. Control panel 22 further includes one or more output
`devices, such as video output device 94 that presents the user of treadmill 12
`
`with information and data transmitted from communication system 18,
`
`including datathatis a live transmission from treadmill 20 or stored
`
`programmingaccessible via communication system 18. Jd. at 12:56—-58,
`
`12:66—-13:4. Additionally, control panel 22 includes one or more operating
`parameter displays that provide a visual display of exercise device operating
`parameters, such as speed, incline, distance traveled, elevation climbed, and
`wheelresistance. Jd. at 13:50-56. The operating parameter display may be
`
`incorporated within video output device 94. Jd. at 13:58-60.
`
`Treadmill 12 may include one or more sensors, such as belt speed
`
`sensor 230 and incline sensor 232. Jd. at 24:56-57. Each sensor 230, 232
`
`gathers a particular operating parameter of treadmill 12 such that control
`panel 22 may present outputs indicative of the present operating state of
`
`treadmill 12 at any given point in time. Jd. at 24:58-62. Treadmill 12 may
`
`include other sensors that gather various other operating parameters, such as
`
`maximum pulse and heart rate, average pulse and heart rate, target heart rate,
`
`length of workoutsession, and the like. Jd. at 24:62-66. Additionally,
`
`sensors 230, 232, optionally in combination with one or more ofthe other
`
`sensors
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
