Peloton Sues Flywheel in High-Tech Fitness Dispute
Peloton Interactive Inc. (“Peloton”), the company known for its in-home cycling bikes, has filed a lawsuit against Flywheel Sports Inc. (“Flywheel”) in the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas. Peloton alleges that Flywheel’s newly released FLY Anywhere bike infringes two patents awarded to Peloton’s co-founder and chief executive John Foley.
Peloton’s in-home cycling bikes use technology to display live and archived cycling classes, allowing users to participate in spin classes that mimic the studio experience. The technology also tracks rider performance and compares performance around the world. Peloton alleges that Flywheel’s FLY Anywhere bike uses the same technology to achieve similar goals, namely, providing an on-demand in-home cycling experience that replicates studio classes.
The lawsuit includes a mention of Michael Milken, the financier who famously pleaded guilty to violating securities laws in 1990 (though Mr. Milken is not named as a defendant). According to Peloton, Mr. Milken is one of Flywheel’s largest investors. The claim alleges that he attended a private investment conference for high-net-worth investors three months before Flywheel announced the development of the Fly Anywhere bike. At the conference, Mr. Milken allegedly falsely presented himself to Mr. Foley as a potential investor in Peloton and “pressed for – and obtained – information from Mr. Foley about Peloton’s technology and business strategy – all without ever disclosing his existing multi-million-dollar investment in Flywheel”. It is alleged that Mr. Milken then passed this information on to Flywheel.
The dispute between Peloton and Flywheel illustrates how technology is intensifying competition in the fitness industry. Whether or not Peloton will succeed in forcing Flywheel to cease selling the FLY Anywhere bike remains to be seen.
Author: Steve Inglis
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@steghe
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…