Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Nike Tries to Stomp Out StockX’s Attempt to Sell NFTs of Nike Sneakers
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Nike Tries to Stomp Out StockX’s Attempt to Sell NFTs of Nike Sneakers
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Nike Threatens Fire & Brimstone Over Satanic Custom Shoe Makers
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Nike Threatens Fire & Brimstone Over Satanic Custom Shoe Makers
Supreme Court Upholds Nike’s “Sue and Run” Tactic in Defending Trademarked Shoe Design
[co-author: Joseph Diorio, Law Clerk] The April 2021 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter discusses the suit filed by Nike over MSCHF's "Satan Shoes"; the latest PTAB decision in the ongoing battle...more
Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, AG, the Federal Circuit held in the context of an Inter Partes Review proceeding that “[i]f the Board sua sponte identifies a patentability issue for a proposed substitute claim … it must provide...more
In the second quarter of 2020, the Supreme Court decided five intellectual property focused cases in which it resolved a longstanding circuit split in Romag Fasteners and opened the door to the trademark registration of...more
Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more
ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC. Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more
In an opinion concerning the notice provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may identify a new patentability...more
NIKE, INC. v. ADIDAS AG - Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may sua sponte identify a patentability issue for a proposed...more
The procedural niceties of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's implementation of the post-grant review features of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act continue to be explicated in the Federal Circuit (and of course, the...more
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Appeal No. 2019-1262 (Fed. Cir., April 9, 2020) - The PTAB has never shown an affinity for permitting amendments in IPRs. This appeal marks the second time that a proposed amendment in an IPR was...more
...PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. Here is an in depth review of the informative decision. On October 31, 2019, the PTAB denied PUMA North America, Inc. (PUMA)’s...more
The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...more
Biodelivery Sciences Intl. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (No. 2017-1265, -1266, -1268, 7/31/18) (Newman, Lourie, Reyna) - Newman, J. Remanding IPRs so the Board can consider non-instituted claims and grounds per the...more
Like utility patents, design patent validity can be challenged in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. Nonetheless, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) tends to reach different results in design...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Moore, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu requires the Board in an instituted...more
Addressing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denying a motion to amend claims under inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the matter to the Board for...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided an appeal earlier this month in a long-running battle between footwear manufacturers Nike and Adidas that gives Patent Owner Nike a partial (and perhaps fleeting) victory....more
Sneakers have been around for a very long time – at least since the late 1800’s. The first patent for a rubber heel for shoes was granted in 1899, and the first patent for “athletic shoes” issued in 1921, although it related...more
Patent owners continue to express frustration at the inability to amend claims during inter partes review proceedings (IPRs). IPRs are patent validity challenges conducted at the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals...more
On February 11, 2016, in Nike v. Adidas (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit partially relaxed the hurdle for a patent owner to amend claims during an IPR or other AIA proceeding. This follows the PTAB’s own earlier partial...more
Motorola v. Mobile Scanning; Adidas v. Nike; Berk-Tek v. Belden; Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N' Care, Ltd. - In the final written decisions of five inter partes reviews (IPRs) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more