NEC Corporation v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

On July 28, 2022, NEC Corporation (“NEC” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Cortlan S. Hitch and Kenneth L. Dorsney of Morris James LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged infringement of U.S. patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with Judge Colm F. Connolly presiding.

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 8,752,101 (the “’101 Patent”), 8,909,809 (the “’809 Patent”), and 9,769,427 (the “’427 Patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”) owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “The claims of the patents-in-suit are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They are not directed to any abstract idea, and the technologies covered by the claims comprise content delivery and distribution systems and/or consist of ordered combinations of features and functions that, at the time of the invention, were not, alone or in combination, well- understood, routine, or conventional.”

The plaintiff alleged, “Defendant offers content streaming services—such as the ‘Peloton App’—that deliver content data from a transmission device to one or more reception devices and manufactures and/or sells products—such as the ‘Peloton Bikes’ and ‘Peloton Treads’—that use such content streaming services (together, the ‘Accused Products’).”

The plaintiff further alleged, “The Accused Products also connect a client device, such as a laptop, tablet, cellphone, a Peloton Bike, or a Peloton Tread to a Peloton content delivery server. The content delivery server then requests content from a server, and then transmits that content to the user device, along with sub content that is overlaid onto the content.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “On information and belief, Defendant directly infringes, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20–23, 25, and 26 of the ’101 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Defendant makes, has made, offers to sell, sells and/or uses the Accused Products. Defendant has known of the ’101 Patent at a date prior to the filing of this Complaint, and has known of the ’101 Patent at least upon the filing of this Complaint.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “On information and belief, Defendant is liable for inducing infringement of the ’101 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by having knowledge of the ’101 Patent and knowingly causing or intending to cause, and continuing to knowingly cause or intend to cause, direct infringement of the ’101 Patent, with specific intent, by its customers.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Peloton contributes to infringement of the ’101 Patent by, inter alia, promotion, and/or sales of the infringing Accused Products to Peloton’s customers for their use of the content distribution method as claimed in the ’101 Patent. Those customers directly infringe the ’101 Patent by using the Accused Products. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’101 Patent, Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, damaged and will suffer irreparable injury.”

Plaintiff stated three claims for relief from the alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit owned by the plaintiff.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award of damages and costs of litigation incurred by the plaintiff.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.