The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - The Sneakerhead Breakup of the Century: Yeezy and Adidas
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - The Sneakerhead Breakup of the Century: Yeezy and Adidas
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
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
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
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
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, 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
In a recent decision on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) rejected Petitioner adidas AG’s (“adidas”) claim that Respondent Christian Faith Fellowship Church (“CFFC”) abandoned its...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
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
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