Peloton gets USITC probe into rival's exercise machines
The US International Trade Commission has agreed to investigate iFIT’s exercise bikes, treadmills, ellipticals and rowing machines following a complaint from Peloton.
In February, Peloton asked the Commission to conduct an investigation into “interactive elements” of exercise machines it believes violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act by infringing several patents.
Specifically, the New York-based company argued that the rival machines infringe US patent numbers 11,170,886,7,938,755, 11,183,288, 11,145,399, and 10,864,406.
The notice of institution of investigation, published on April 1, claimed that the investigation will target one of its key rivals iFIT as well as its related brands and subsidiaries Icon Fitness Group, NordicTrack, Free Motion Fitness, and IHF Holdings.
iFIT and Peloton have previously pursued infringement action against each other in district courts. For example, one of Icon’s brands NordicTrack sued Peloton in 2020, claiming that the company was continuing a “pattern of infringement” with its Bike+ product.
It said in the lawsuit that Peloton had taken advantage of the “unprecedented demand” for indoor exercise equipment created by the COVID-19 pandemic and had “simply copied technology developed by others”.
iFIT has recently faced pushback from investors partly due to its ongoing bout with Peloton.
According to reports last month, iFIT’s CEO Scott Watterson was forced to leave the company as a condition for securing a $355 million funding round from investors that “insisted” on a new direction for the company that would not involve directly competing with Peloton.
Lululemon suit
Peloton has also taken Lululemon Athletica to court after the apparel maker allegedly threatened its own lawsuit against a line of Peloton apparel.
In the complaint, Peloton explains that it had signed an agreement with Lululemon to launch a line of Peloton-branded clothing, but the co-branding relationship terminated shortly after the launch of the clothing line.
It claimed that, upon the termination of the agreement, Lululemon “did not object in any way to Peloton’s termination or the offering of its own activewear apparel”.
However, Peloton then received a cease and desist order from Lululemon’s counsel which claimed that the clothing infringed design patents held by Lululemon, prompting Peloton to file a defensive lawsuit to argue that Lululemon’s allegations “lacked any merit”.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
