The complaint

The case is Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd. v. Tonal Systems, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00889 (E.D. Tex.), filed October 5, 2026 in the Marshall Division with a jury demand and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Flow Motion, which the complaint describes as an entity organized under the laws of Israel, is represented by The Davis Firm and Cherian Harkins Dunham. The complaint alleges that Flow Motion owns all right, title, and interest in each asserted patent by assignment, and alleges on information and belief that Tonal is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco.

All three patents are titled Method and System for Monitoring and Feed-Backing on Execution of Physical Exercise Routines and name Arie Shavit, Idit Perl Shavit, and Alon Shavit as inventors: U.S. Patent 9,987,520, issued June 5, 2018; U.S. Patent 11,745,055, issued September 5, 2023; and U.S. Patent 12,157,035, issued December 3, 2024. Google Patents lists a priority date of January 26, 2011 for each. The complaint says the technology was conceived in 2010 by "Mr. Arik Shavit" (elsewhere it names the inventor as Arie Shavit) while he attended Pilates classes taught by his then-wife, Idit, after he saw that people exercising on exercise devices needed real-time feedback on their form and that she had difficulty setting each trainee's resistance level and tracking each participant's progress.

What the asserted claims cover

Claim 16 of the '520 patent covers a method for monitoring performance of a physical exercise routine:

  • a computing device receives sensory information from a plurality of motion and position sensors configured to track at least one movement of a user performing the routine on an exercise device;
  • the computing device compares the sensory information to routine information stored in a database to detect dissimilarities between them;
  • an output of the computing device provides feedback to the user that includes at least instructions related to changing the execution of the routine; and
  • based on the feedback, at least one of the difficulty level, resistance, or tension provided by the exercise device is automatically changed.

Claim 1 of the '055 patent covers a system for monitoring performance of an exercise routine with a computing device; a plurality of motion and position sensors configured to generate sensory information related to at least one movement of a user; a database containing routine information representing at least one frame of the exercise routine; and a training module configured to track at least one movement of the user performing the routine on an exercise device, to use at least one of the appearance of the exercise device, the appearance of a feature of the exercise device, or a machine representation model of it, for at least one of separating from the sensory information at least the appearance of the exercise device or a feature of it, calibration and/or adjustment of the generated sensory information, or assistance in the generation of a machine representation of the user, and to generate at least a machine representation model of the user from the sensory information.

Claim 1 of the '035 patent covers a similar system with two substantive differences in the claim text. It requires at least one motion sensor and/or at least one position sensor rather than a plurality of motion and position sensors, and its training module does not include the '055 claim's final step of generating a machine representation model of the user. The complaint itself flags the sensor difference and says that, for purposes of patent eligibility, none of the asserted claims is representative of all asserted claims.

The accused products

The complaint accuses the Tonal digital strength training system, which it also calls the Tonal Digital Weight System, including Tonal 1 and later versions such as Tonal 2, together with one or more remote computing systems operated or controlled by Tonal. Its charts rely mainly on Tonal's own web pages and support articles describing three features: Form Feedback, which according to the Tonal materials quoted uses multiple sensors and cable length data tracked 60 times a second, and a database of nearly a billion repetitions and more than 100 million sets, to give corrective cues; Dynamic Weight Modes such as Spotter, Burnout, Eccentric, and Chains, which the materials describe as adjusting weight during a set; and Smart View, which the complaint addresses on information and belief. It also quotes a complaint Tonal filed against Echelon Fitness Multimedia in Delaware in February 2026, No. 1:26-cv-00151 (D. Del.), in which Tonal described its smart home gym as using an electromagnetic motor monitored and controlled by artificial intelligence and motion sensor technology.

How the complaint charts claim 16 of the '520 patent

  • Receiving sensory information from motion and position sensors: Tonal equipment pages, a product review, and the Form Feedback announcement describing the system's sensors.
  • Comparing to routine information in a database to detect dissimilarities: an allegation, on information and belief, that the comparison uses stored reference information for the exercise, citing Tonal's description of Form Feedback as using a database of nearly a billion repetitions and more than 100 million sets to analyze pace, range of motion, positioning, balance, symmetry, and smoothness.
  • Feedback with instructions for changing execution: Form Feedback cues such as telling a user to drive the hips back or lower more slowly.
  • Automatically changing resistance or tension: Dynamic Weight Modes, including Spotter, which the Tonal materials say reduces the weight when a user struggles to complete a rep.
  • Automatically changing difficulty level: a Tonal getting-started guide, and the Echelon complaint's description of a "time flex" feature that pauses, delays, or advances workout content based on the user's pace.

For direct infringement of this method claim, the complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Tonal, through its employees or agents, performs all steps of claim 16 during demonstrations of the products, and it pleads in general terms that Tonal directs or controls others' performance of the steps. Its inducement allegations add, also on information and belief, that customers directly infringe claim 16 when they use the products during exercise sessions. During prosecution, the complaint says, the applicant distinguished the Alessandri reference on the automatic-changing step, and the claim was allowed with that step.

How the complaint charts the '055 and '035 claims

For the device-appearance element of both system claims, the complaint cites Tonal's statement that Form Feedback "senses the length and position of Tonal's cables," Bluetooth-connected Smart Accessories that track movement, and, on information and belief, Smart View. For the separation, calibration, or machine-representation element, it alleges on information and belief that the products "appear to show the machine representation of a user," citing Smart View and Coaching Cues support pages. The complaint says the applicant distinguished the Bentley reference during prosecution of the '055 patent on these limitations, and that the examiner allowed the '035 claims over Kutliroff, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0298650, for the same features.

Points to watch in claim scope

The system claims tie the training module to the appearance of the exercise device, the appearance of a feature of it, or a machine representation model of it, and the complaint's lead evidence for that element is cable length and position sensing. How the court reads "appearance" in that setting is an open question. So is what the record shows about Smart View: the complaint reproduces Tonal's statement that Smart View uses the Tonal 2 on-trainer camera, but it alleges only on information and belief that Smart View meets the device-appearance and machine-representation elements. For the '520 claim, the comparison step rests on information and belief about how Form Feedback uses its database, and the difficulty-level theory rests partly on content timing rather than machine resistance; the claim recites automatically changing "at least one of" difficulty level, resistance, or tension provided by the exercise device. The complaint also spends more than a dozen paragraphs arguing that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, anticipating a challenge under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Indirect infringement and willfulness

Each count pleads induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) through user manuals, online Q&A, website instructions, and customer support, with knowledge of the patents "through at least the filing and service of this Complaint." The complaint does not plead contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). Each count also alleges that Tonal willfully infringes based on knowledge from the filing of the complaint; the complaint does not allege any notice letter or other pre-suit knowledge. It does not mention marking under 35 U.S.C. 287.

Venue

The complaint pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), which allows a patent suit where the defendant resides or where it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. It does not allege that Tonal operates its own facility in the district. Instead, it points to two Johnson Fitness & Wellness stores in Plano and Frisco, Texas that Tonal's website lists as "Tonal Showroom[s]" and where Tonal offers bookable in-person demonstrations led by a "Tonal expert." It alleges, on information and belief, that Tonal trains and oversees the store personnel, that they act as Tonal's agents in demonstrating Tonal systems and facilitating their sale, and that Tonal has established or ratified the stores as its places of business. It adds, on information and belief, that Tonal's authorized delivery and installation providers, including RXO and Ryder, act on Tonal's behalf and that a Ryder facility in The Colony, Texas is used as a Tonal authorized service provider in the district. The venue section states only that Tonal has committed acts of infringement in the district; elsewhere the complaint alleges that Tonal sells the products in the district and, on information and belief, that Tonal's employees or agents perform the claimed method during product demonstrations, without saying where those demonstrations take place.

Relief

The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement of all three patents, damages with costs, expenses, and interest, a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and enhanced damages for willful infringement. Each count alleges entitlement to damages adequate to compensate for the infringement and in no event less than a reasonable royalty, language that tracks 35 U.S.C. 284, though the complaint does not cite that section. The complaint does not ask for an injunction and does not state an expiration date for any patent. Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration date of January 26, 2032 for the '520 and '035 patents and an adjusted expiration date of August 17, 2032 for the '055 patent.

Related case

Flow Motion filed an earlier suit on the same three patents against Peloton Interactive, Inc. in the same court on July 24, 2026, Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00610 (E.D. Tex.), also before Judge Gilstrap. The original complaint accuses Peloton rowing products, including the Peloton Row, Cross Training Row+, and Peloton Row+ Pro. Peloton's answer to that complaint had been due October 6, 2026 under an agreed extension; on October 5, 2026, Flow Motion filed an amended complaint.

What to watch next

Watch for Tonal's answer or any motion to dismiss, including a challenge under 35 U.S.C. 101 or to the agency theory of venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b); whether the Tonal and Peloton cases are consolidated or coordinated; and any petition for inter partes review of the three patents. The case can end at any time by license, settlement, or dismissal.