Fast IP, LLC et al. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

Case Overview and Background

The plaintiffs in this case represent the commercial and intellectual property interests of the "Kizik" brand of hands-free footwear. Kizik Design, LLC is the operating company that sells the shoes, while HandsFree Labs is the associated R&D and IP holding company that developed the underlying technology. Fast IP, LLC is an entity associated with the patent portfolio's licensing and enforcement. The defendant, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., is a multi-billion dollar global footwear giant and a direct competitor. This lawsuit is not a typical non-practicing entity (NPE) assertion; rather, it is a direct confrontation between a market incumbent and the company that claims to have pioneered the technology in a rapidly growing footwear sub-market.

The dispute centers on Skechers' popular "Slip-ins" line of shoes, which the plaintiffs allege infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006 ("the '006 patent"). The '006 patent, titled "Shoe with a stiffened heel counter," describes technology for a collapsible yet supportive heel structure that allows a user to easily slide their foot into a shoe without using their hands or crushing the heel. The plaintiffs contend that Skechers, after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire HandsFree Labs, incorporated this patented hands-free entry technology into its own competing products without a license, leveraging its massive market power to overwhelm the original innovator.

Filed in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the case is before a court long known as a popular and efficient venue for patent holders, though recent Supreme Court decisions on venue have somewhat diluted its dominance. The case is notable as it pits a smaller, innovation-focused company against a market leader in a high-growth consumer product category. The litigation strategy is also characteristic of modern patent disputes: in addition to defending itself in district court, Skechers has preemptively challenged the validity of the '006 patent by filing a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This dual-track approach often results in the district court case being stayed, or paused, pending the PTAB's decision on the patent's validity, which can significantly influence the outcome and any potential settlement discussions.

Following a high-profile commercial launch of its "Slip-ins" footwear, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. now faces patent infringement litigation from the creators of Kizik hands-free shoes. The case is in its early stages, with significant developments including the filing of a parallel validity challenge at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is likely to influence the district court proceedings.

Here is a chronology of key legal developments in Fast IP, LLC et al. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and the related patent office challenge.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2025-07-24: Plaintiffs Fast IP, LLC, HandsFree Labs Licensing, LLC, and Kizik Design, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against Skechers U.S.A., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00744). The suit, assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, alleges that Skechers' "Hands Free Slip-ins" product line willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006, along with three other utility patents and two design patents. The plaintiffs seek damages and a permanent injunction to halt the alleged infringement. The complaint argues that Skechers was aware of the plaintiffs' pioneering technology, in part because the '006 patent was cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of one of Skechers' own patent applications.
• 2025-07-28: In a public statement, Skechers announced its intention to "vigorously defend" itself against the lawsuit, calling the allegations "baseless." The company contended that hands-free shoe technology is a "century-old idea" and that Skechers developed its own unique technology, for which it holds over 140 patents.
• 2025-10-14: Skechers filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for pre-suit and willful infringement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations (Dkt. 16).
• 2025-12-19: The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 44). This filing appears to have mooted the earlier motion to dismiss, as an order later noted (Dkt. 30 was denied as moot). This is a common outcome when a complaint is amended while a motion to dismiss is pending.

International Litigation

• 2025-08-13: The plaintiffs expanded their legal battle by filing a parallel patent infringement complaint against Skechers at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Munich, Germany. This action seeks an injunction to block sales of the accused "Slip-ins" across all UPC member states.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• 2026-04-24: Skechers filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006. The proceeding is docketed as IPR2026-00342. Skechers also filed a petition against another asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811 (IPR2026-00343).
• 2026-04-30: The PTAB issued a "Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition" for IPR2026-00342. This notice formally begins the IPR process and sets a deadline of approximately July 30, 2026, for the patent owner, Fast IP, LLC, to file its Patent Owner's Preliminary Response. Following that, the PTAB will have three months to decide whether to institute a trial on the patent's validity, with a decision expected around October 2026.

Current Posture and Expected Developments

As of May 5, 2026, the district court case is active. Given the recent filing of the IPR petition, the next anticipated step is for Skechers to file a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the PTAB's review of the '006 patent. Courts in the Eastern District of Texas often, though not always, grant such stays to promote judicial efficiency and await the PTAB's expert opinion on patent validity. The court's decision on a potential stay will be the next critical milestone in this litigation.

Counsel for Plaintiffs Fast IP, LLC et al.

Plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel from the national trial firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and local counsel from the well-established East Texas firm Gillam & Smith, LLP.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Ryan D. Dykal

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: As co-leader of the firm's patent litigation practice, Dykal has secured over $1 billion in verdicts and settlements for plaintiffs and is a nationally recognized trial lawyer for high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

• Name: Joshua I. Schiller

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (New York, NY & San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Schiller is an experienced trial lawyer with a practice that includes complex intellectual property litigation, and he was recognized as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers for his work in this area.

Local Counsel

• Name: Melissa R. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas)
  • Note: A partner in the firm, Smith is a veteran of the Eastern District of Texas, having served as local counsel in over three thousand patent cases and tried multiple patent cases to verdict.

• Name: Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas)
  • Note: A Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, Gillam is a highly respected East Texas trial attorney sought after by national firms for his courtroom acumen in complex intellectual property matters.

Counsel for Defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

Defendant Skechers is represented by the nationally renowned intellectual property litigation firm Irell & Manella LLP as lead counsel, with the Tyler-based firm Potter Minton serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Morgan Chu

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Widely regarded as one of the top IP trial lawyers in the nation, Chu has secured billions of dollars in verdicts and settlements and has previously represented Skechers in other intellectual property disputes.

• Name: Alan Heinrich

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Heinrich is an experienced patent litigator with a Ph.D. in chemistry, often handling cases involving complex technologies for clients like TiVo and Genentech.

• Name: Samuel K. Lu

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Lu focuses on intellectual property litigation and has been part of Irell's teams representing Skechers in prior trademark disputes before the International Trade Commission.

Local Counsel

• Name: Michael E. Jones

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Jones is a seasoned trial lawyer in East Texas specializing in intellectual property, oil and gas, and commercial litigation.

• Name: Allen F. Gardner

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Gardner's practice includes civil litigation with experience in federal court proceedings in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: John T. "Johnny" Ward, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: A former U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Ward is a highly sought-after local counsel for his deep expertise in the district's patent rules and practices.