News & Analysis as of

Nike Patents

Foley & Lardner LLP

Beyond the Podium: Technology & Fashion in Track and Field

Foley & Lardner LLP on

When Nike® unveiled the kits for the 2024 U.S. Olympic track and field team, the design of the women’s kits sparked significant discussion online. At the center of the discussion was a one-piece women’s suit with a high-cut...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

MarkIt to Market® - April 2021

[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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir....

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions

[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

Fenwick & West LLP

Rescinding a Specification Disclaimer Introduces New Matter

Fenwick & West LLP on

A recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit serves as an important reminder of the distinction between a disclaimer introduced in the specification of a patent and a disclaimer introduced during...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

No Pleading, No Problem: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss and Bifurcates Willful Infringement Determination, in Absence of...

Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A.,...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Patent Held Invalid—Specification Disclaimer Prevented Claim to Earlier Priority Date

In Akeva L.L.C., v. Nike, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer in a specification that excluded a particular embodiment prevented later claims in the continuation patents from claiming the excluded embodiment,...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

PTAB Must Give Parties A Chance To Respond To New Grounds

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Miller Canfield

IP Litigation Quarterly Update

Miller Canfield on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

“Seams” Like Activity Giving Rise to Infringement Risk Supports Appellate Jurisdiction

Adding to its body of jurisprudence on standing to challenge an adverse final written opinion in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a petitioner had constitutional...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - June 2020 #3

This week’s case of the week deals with issues relating to obviousness and standing in a consolidated appeal of two final written decisions issued in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

Knobbe Martens

No Specific Threat of Infringement Litigation Needed to Establish Standing for IPR Appeal

Knobbe Martens on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2019: The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure...

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

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Must Give Notice and Opportunity to Respond When Raising Its Own Theory of Unpatentability

Knobbe Martens on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

Troutman Pepper

No Notice, No Decision

Troutman Pepper on

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

Proskauer Rose LLP

Three Point Shot - May 2019

Proskauer Rose LLP on

Welcome to Three Point Shot, a newsletter brought to you by the Sports Law Group at Proskauer. Three Point Shot brings you the latest in sports law-related news and provides you with links to related materials... Topgolf...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

McNees 2018 in Review – Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents

From big name brawls, to new legislation, to the year of inter partes review, 2018 was a hallmark year for intellectual property law. With so many interesting and informative updates, 2018 has set the bar high for 2019. Let’s...more

Knobbe Martens

Nike's Shoe Patents Outrun Puma's Challenge

Knobbe Martens on

On May 3, 2018, Nike filed a lawsuit against Puma in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts accusing Puma of infringing seven of its utility patents related to footwear. In an earlier post on this blog, we...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2018

Knobbe Martens on

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2018

WilmerHale on

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

Jones Day

Patent Owner Finds The “Achilles Heel” In Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory

Jones Day on

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

Knobbe Martens

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

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

Knobbe Martens

Nike Accuses Puma of Patent Infringement for Flyknit, Air, and Cleat Technology

Knobbe Martens on

Nike filed a lawsuit against Puma on May 3, 2018 in the District Court of Massachusetts accusing Puma of infringing over 40 claims of seven utility patents. The complaint asserts that Puma is using Nike’s Flyknit®, Air®, and...more

32 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide