Author: Kristy Werness

In its Order, the Court rejected Flywheel’s argument that Peloton’s patents described inventions that were well-understood, routine and/or conventional, agreeing with Peloton that “at the very least, questions of fact remain.”

“We are thrilled with this victory and look forward to proceeding toward trial,” said Peloton’s lead counsel.

Peloton’s patents, which Flywheel unsuccessfully challenged, relate to Peloton’s state of the art leaderboard technology, which allows Peloton users to–for the first time ever–compete with a group of thousands of other riders in all corners of the world—even those riding at different times—and still easily see where his or her performance stands in comparison to the other riders at any given point in the class. When Peloton implemented these innovations in its Peloton Bike, it received universal praise from publications and fitness experts, who hailed the product as “category-creating,” “revolutionary,” and “the best cardio machine on the planet.”

Just last month, the Court denied Flywheel’s motion to stay the litigation, and granted Peloton’s motion for sanctions against Flywheel for discovery abuses.

Peloton is represented by Doug Dixon, Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, Karen Younkins and Neil Anderson of Hueston Hennigan LLP.

Click here to read Law360 article.

The question presented was whether Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other mandatory claim-processing rules are susceptible to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court adopted Hueston Hennigan’s argument that these rules are unalterable if properly raised, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s contrary ruling, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. See Lambert v. Nutraceutical.

The Ninth Circuit issued its order on remand and denied Petition Troy Lambert’s appeal in full. The Ninth Circuit rejected all of Lambert’s arguments as to why his appeal was timely and reaffirmed the ruling Hueston Hennigan obtained at the Supreme Court “that Rule 23(f)’s time limit is purposefully unforgiving.”

This ruling also preserves Hueston Hennigan’s victory at the lower court, where it obtained decertification of the putative plaintiff class.

Nutraceutical is represented by John Hueston and associate Joseph Reiter.

The settlement resolves the Nation’s lawsuit detailing the Bank’s long campaign of predatory and unlawful practices and reflects a larger recovery than that obtained by similarly populous states.

The Hueston Hennigan team was led by John C. Hueston and Moez M. Kaba, and includes associate Lauren McGrory-Johnson.

Media Coverage

Navajo Nation Press Release

“Wells Fargo Pays Navajo Nation $6.5 Million In ‘Predatory’ Lawsuit Settlement,” Forbes, August 22, 2019.

“Navajo Nation Ends Appeal Of Wells Fargo Fake Accounts Suit,” Law360, August 20, 2019.

“Wells Fargo pays $6.5 million to Navajo Nation over ‘predatory’ practices,” Reuters, August 22, 2019.

In its Order, Judge Roy Payne found that Flywheel had “not sufficiently shown that a stay would simplify the issues within the case,” and “that a stay would result in significant prejudice for Peloton.” Order at 1. The Court agreed with Peloton that a stay would be particularly inappropriate here given that Flywheel’s At Home Bike, which allegedly incorporates the infringing technology, is a “direct competitor” to Peloton.

Importantly, the Court also rejected Flywheel’s argument that a stay would help simplify the issues, agreeing with Peloton that given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) – which precluded the PTAB from instituting IPRs for only a portion of the patent claims – “any institution decision occurring after SAS provides a weaker inference that the PTAB will determine that all challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, institution decisions for the ’085, ’276, and ’855 [Peloton] Patents are less helpful in indicating that IPRs will result in a simplification of issues than they would have been before SAS.” The Court’s agreement with Peloton’s argument here is significant and highly relevant to not just the instant litigation, but other patent litigations pending throughout the U.S.

Counsel for Peloton, said, “We are pleased that the Court rejected Flywheel’s attempt to stay this important litigation, and look forward to proceeding expeditiously to trial.”

Jury selection is set to begin on June 15, 2020.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 9,174,085, 9,233,276, 9,861,855 and 10,322,315.

The case is Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports Inc., case number 2:18-cv-00390, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

Peloton is represented by Douglas J. Dixon, Christina Rayburn, Karen Younkins and Neil Anderson of Hueston Hennigan LLP.