Peloton In A Spin? Mad Dogg Athletics Files Patent Infringement Claim

What a difference a year can make. This time last year, fitness juggernaut Peloton was reported to have lost $1.5 billion in value, following the release of a Christmas advert that was roundly criticised for being ‘sexist.’ Fast forward to December 2020, and we see Peloton’s stock reported to be up by 371%, with that increase in value likely being attributable to coronavirus lockdowns having forced gym goers to find new ways to exercise from their homes.

But it hasn’t all been plain sailing for Peloton. Whilst its content (live and on demand fitness classes – from spin, to strength, to running and yoga) can be accessed through an app subscription, it’s probably fair to say that its flagship product is its bike and the recently released bike ‘plus’. Both of those products are now subject to patent infringement claims, issued in the US, by Mad Dogg Athletics.

Whilst this particular dispute will be played out before the US Courts, the patents under discussion form part of a patent family with reach across a number of European countries, including the UK. It is entirely possible that we might see a very similar dispute being litigated closer to home at some point in the future.

How could it look in the UK?

If the litigation were to spill over in the UK Courts, what would Mad Dogg have to prove in their claim against Peloton?

In brief, Mad Dogg would have to establish that Peloton has infringed one or more of the claims set out in a patent in force in the UK. Infringement can be direct or indirect:

• Direct infringement claims concerning products relate to commercial activities such as manufacturing, selling and importing a product.
• Indirect infringement will occur when ‘means relating to an essential element’ of the invention protected by the patent are supplied or offered for supply.

In either case, the crucial question will be how the claims of the patent are interpreted – after all, the claims determine the monopoly granted by the patent and, therefore, the rights of the patentee to prevent a third party from undertaking the activities referred to above.

In some cases, the question of whether there has been an infringement is answered with relative ease. If the impugned product falls neatly and entirely within a claim as written, a ‘literal infringement’ will have occurred.

In recent years however, the UK Courts have adopted a more expansive approach to infringement, allowing for patent claims to be construed with reference to the ‘purpose’ of the invention rather than a strict reading of the claims as written. In addition, if the allegedly infringing product differs from the invention claimed in some immaterial way but that variation achieves substantially the same result in substantially the same way, this too can open the door for a finding of infringement.

The position has been set out at a very high level for the purposes of this blog (the law on variants in particular is complex) but what we can be sure of is, given the popularity of Peloton, the stakes for both that company and Mad Dogg in this litigation will be high.