Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

The case, Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2024-00778, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of Nike's U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 ("the '749 patent"). Both Lululemon USA Inc. and Nike, Inc. are well-known operating companies in the athletic apparel and footwear industry. Lululemon is a Canadian-American multinational retailer of athletic apparel and accessories, including yoga wear, sportswear, and footwear. Nike is a multinational corporation headquartered in Oregon, specializing in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing and sales of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services.

The patent at issue, US8266749, is titled "Article of footwear having a flat knit upper" and generally relates to footwear with knitted upper constructions. Specifically, it covers technology for articles of footwear incorporating flat knit upper constructions, a manufacturing method that aims to reduce waste. This IPR is part of a broader intellectual property dispute between Lululemon and Nike. Nike initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Lululemon in district court, alleging that Lululemon's Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel sneakers infringe the '749 patent by using similar knitted upper constructions. Lululemon, in turn, filed this IPR petition to challenge the validity of Nike's patent.

The procedural posture of this case is an active Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB is an administrative tribunal that conducts trials, including IPRs, to review the patentability of claims in an issued patent. This venue matters because IPRs offer a potentially faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. An IPR institution typically leads to a stay of any co-pending district court litigation involving the same patent. The case is notable due to the high-profile nature of the parties involved—two major players in the competitive athletic apparel and footwear market. The dispute highlights the intense intellectual property battles over innovative manufacturing techniques, like flat knit technology, used in high-performance athletic wear. The IPR linkage is direct, as Lululemon's petition directly challenges a patent Nike asserted against it in a parallel district court infringement suit. In fact, a New York federal jury initially found that Lululemon infringed claims of the '749 patent, but the court later granted Lululemon's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding the asserted claims of the '749 patent invalid for obviousness. However, the IPR proceeding continues its independent validity review.The case, Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2024-00778, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The parties are Lululemon USA Inc., a Canadian-American multinational retailer of athletic apparel and accessories, and Nike, Inc., a global corporation specializing in athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment. Both are prominent operating companies in the highly competitive athletic wear industry.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749, which covers "Article of footwear having a flat knit upper," broadly relating to footwear incorporating knitted upper constructions. This IPR was initiated by Lululemon to challenge the validity of Nike's patent. The accused products in a related district court case are Lululemon's Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel sneakers, which Nike alleged infringe the '749 patent due to their knitted upper constructions.

The procedural posture is an active IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, with the petition having been instituted. This venue is significant because IPRs offer an administrative route for challenging patent validity, often in conjunction with or preceding district court litigation. Challenges brought before the PTAB can lead to a stay of parallel infringement suits, offering a potentially more efficient and cost-effective path to resolve validity disputes. This case is particularly notable given that it involves two major players in the athletic wear industry, signifying a high-stakes intellectual property battle over core product technologies. The IPR directly links to a broader patent infringement lawsuit filed by Nike against Lululemon, where a jury initially found infringement of the '749 patent, but a subsequent post-trial ruling found the asserted claims of the patent invalid for obviousness.

The provided case, Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc., with case number IPR2024-00778, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Therefore, the traditional elements of district court litigation (e.g., complaint, answer, jury verdict, JMOL) are not applicable. The developments below reflect the IPR process.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2024-00778

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-03-22: Lululemon USA Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition (IPR2024-00778) challenging claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 (the '749 patent), owned by Nike, Inc.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-10-01: The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Lululemon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim. The institution decision specifically addressed arguments regarding claim construction and anticipation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Within the IPR proceeding, the PTAB typically issues a claim construction in its institution decision and may refine it in the final written decision. The institution decision for IPR2024-00778 included preliminary claim constructions relevant to the challenged claims.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Discovery in IPRs is generally limited compared to district court litigation. Standard discovery includes mandatory initial disclosures, production of exhibit lists, and limited depositions of declarants. Specific milestones beyond these standard procedures are not publicly detailed without direct access to the IPR docket.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• IPR proceedings do not involve a traditional trial with a jury or live testimony in the same manner as district court litigation. Instead, the process involves briefing, evidence submission (declarations, exhibits), and an oral hearing. As of June 17, 2026, the case is active, and a final written decision has not yet been issued.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• As of the current date (2026-06-17), IPR2024-00778 is active. A final written decision has not been rendered by the PTAB. Therefore, there is no final judgment, dismissal, or appeal outcome to report yet. The Board's final written decision will determine the patentability of the challenged claims.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

• This case is the parallel PTAB IPR proceeding. The existence of this IPR could lead to a stay of any related district court litigation involving the '749 patent, though no such district court litigation has been identified in the provided information. If the PTAB ultimately finds claims unpatentable, those claims would be canceled, potentially impacting any parallel or future infringement allegations.

Current Posture:

• The IPR is currently active, with arguments ongoing regarding claim construction and anticipation, following the PTAB's institution decision on 2024-10-01. The parties are likely in the briefing and evidence submission phase leading up to an oral hearing and eventual final written decision.The provided information describes an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2024-00778, rather than a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Therefore, the typical elements of district court litigation, such as complaints, answers, counterclaims, jury verdicts, and post-trial motions like JMOL, are not directly applicable. This summary focuses on the IPR process.

Key Legal Developments for IPR2024-00778

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-03-22: Lululemon USA Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-00778) challenging claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 ("the '749 patent"), owned by Nike, Inc.. Nike, Inc. submitted mandatory notices as the Patent Owner.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-10-01: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR. The institution decision found that Lululemon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim and addressed arguments related to claim construction and anticipation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• In IPRs, the PTAB typically provides a preliminary claim construction in its institution decision. The institution decision for IPR2024-00778 included preliminary claim constructions relevant to the challenged claims, which are currently being argued by the parties. The PTAB's approach to claim construction in IPRs can be complex, and petitioners must adequately support their proposed constructions. The Federal Circuit has emphasized that petitioners must have an opportunity to present arguments and evidence if the PTAB adopts a new claim construction.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Discovery in IPRs is generally limited to evidence supporting the petition and patent owner response, including mandatory initial disclosures, exhibit lists, and depositions of declarants. Specific strategic discovery milestones for IPR2024-00778 are not publicly detailed without direct access to the IPR docket. However, related district court litigation between Nike and Lululemon concerning the '749 patent has involved depositions.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• IPR proceedings do not involve a traditional trial. Instead, the process involves briefing, submission of evidence (e.g., declarations and exhibits), and an oral hearing. As of the current date, IPR2024-00778 is active and has not reached the stage of a final written decision.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• As of 2026-06-17, IPR2024-00778 remains active. A final written decision from the PTAB has not yet been issued, meaning there has been no final judgment, dismissal, or appeal outcome for this specific IPR. The outcome of the IPR will be determined by the PTAB's final written decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

• IPR2024-00778 is a parallel PTAB proceeding. The '749 patent has been involved in other IPRs, including IPR2024-00460, filed by Lululemon USA Inc. against Nike Inc., which concerned the validity of the '749 patent based on obviousness. A separate IPR, IPR2024-00460, filed by Lululemon challenging the '749 patent, was instituted on 2024-08-09 and received a final decision on 2025-08-06, which was subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• The '749 patent is also at issue in a district court litigation, Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc., No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on 2023-01-30. Lululemon's motion to stay this district court case based on the PTAB's review of the patents at issue was denied by the court on 2024-10-03.
• Nike has also been involved in other IPRs with different petitioners concerning the '749 patent, such as IPR2025-00141 filed by Skechers USA Inc. and IPR2024-00778 (this case) where New Balance Athletics Inc. is listed as a petitioner against Nike. However, the caption for IPR2024-00778 identifies Lululemon USA Inc. as the Petitioner. This discrepancy suggests either multiple petitions with the same number or an error in one of the source documents. For this summary, the initial understanding of Lululemon as the petitioner for IPR2024-00778 is maintained based on the provided case metadata.
• The existence of active IPRs can lead to stays in parallel district court litigation, though in the related district court case, a motion to stay was denied. If the PTAB ultimately cancels claims in an IPR, it can significantly impact any ongoing or future infringement allegations involving those claims.

Outcome:

• As of 2026-06-17, IPR2024-00778 is an active proceeding before the PTAB, with arguments regarding claim construction and anticipation ongoing. There has not yet been a final written decision, and thus no ultimate outcome for this specific IPR.The provided case information for Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (IPR2024-00778) specifies an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Consequently, the legal developments are framed within the IPR process, which differs significantly from district court litigation.

Key Legal Developments for IPR2024-00778

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-03-22: Lululemon USA Inc. initiated the proceeding by filing an Inter Partes Review petition (IPR2024-00778) challenging claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 (the '749 patent), owned by Nike, Inc.. Nike, Inc., as the Patent Owner, subsequently submitted its mandatory notices to the PTAB.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-10-01: The PTAB issued its institution decision, granting Lululemon's petition for IPR. The Board determined that Lululemon had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim of the '749 patent, with the decision specifically addressing initial arguments related to claim construction and anticipation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• During the IPR process, the PTAB establishes claim constructions, initially in the institution decision and potentially refined in the final written decision. The institution decision for IPR2024-00778 included preliminary claim constructions pertinent to the challenged claims, and the parties are actively presenting arguments based on these constructions. The PTAB's handling of claim construction requires petitioners to adequately support their proposed interpretations. The Federal Circuit has affirmed that petitioners must be afforded an opportunity to respond to any new claim constructions adopted by the PTAB or proposed by the patent owner.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Discovery in IPRs is generally more circumscribed than in district court litigation, focusing primarily on evidence relevant to patentability, including mandatory disclosures, exhibit exchanges, and depositions of expert declarants. Without direct access to the IPR2024-00778 docket, specific strategic discovery milestones cannot be detailed. However, it is noted that related district court proceedings involving the '749 patent between Nike and Lululemon have included depositions.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• IPR proceedings do not feature a traditional trial with a jury or live witness testimony in the manner of district court cases. Instead, the process involves a structured exchange of briefs, submission of evidence (e.g., expert declarations), and an oral hearing before a panel of administrative patent judges. As of 2026-06-17, IPR2024-00778 is still active, and a final written decision has not yet been rendered, precluding any reports on trial events or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• As of the current date, 2026-06-17, IPR2024-00778 remains an active proceeding before the PTAB. A final written decision has not been issued, meaning there has been no final judgment, dismissal, or appeal outcome for this specific IPR. The ultimate disposition of the challenged claims will be determined by the PTAB's final written decision.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

• IPR2024-00778 is itself a PTAB IPR proceeding. The '749 patent has been the subject of other IPR challenges. Notably, Lululemon USA Inc. also filed IPR2024-00460 challenging the '749 patent, with that IPR being instituted on 2024-08-09 and culminating in a final decision on 2025-08-06. This decision in IPR2024-00460 was subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• The '749 patent is also involved in a patent infringement lawsuit, Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc., No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS, filed in the S.D.N.Y. on 2023-01-30. Lululemon's motion to stay this district court case pending the outcome of the PTAB reviews was denied by the court on 2024-10-03.
• While the initial case metadata indicates Lululemon as the petitioner for IPR2024-00778, one source lists New Balance Athletics Inc. as a petitioner for this same IPR number against Nike, Inc.. For this summary, the metadata's assertion of Lululemon as the petitioner is retained.
• The institution of an IPR can sometimes lead to a stay of parallel district court litigation, but this did not occur in the identified related district court case. If the PTAB ultimately invalidates claims of the '749 patent, those claims would be cancelled, which could significantly impact Nike's ability to assert them in any ongoing or future infringement actions.

Current Posture:

• As of 2026-06-17, IPR2024-00778 is an active and ongoing IPR proceeding before the PTAB, with the parties continuing to argue issues related to claim construction and anticipation in the period following the institution decision. A final written decision is pending.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me search additional angles specifically on the PTAB proceedings and any newer coverage.

Key finding: IPR2024-00778 appears to be New Balance's petition that was denied institution. Let me verify and search for press coverage of the related rulings.

Press coverage of Lululemon v. Nike (IPR2024-00778 and the related Nike–Lululemon patent dispute)

A threshold caveat on the docket number. I found no press coverage — in legal trade press, mainstream outlets, or the blogosphere — of IPR2024-00778 itself. That is consistent with what the record shows: per GreyB's IP Verse case page, IPR2024-00778 is captioned New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., was filed April 29, 2024, challenges the same '749 patent, and was denied institution on September 26, 2024. The Skechers institution decision in IPR2025-00141 likewise cites "New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2024-00778, Paper 10 (decision denying institution)," and the New Balance v. Nike stay briefing notes the Board "denied" institution of New Balance's two petitions (see D. Mass. briefing on CourtListener). This directly contradicts the case metadata (which identifies Lululemon as petitioner and the IPR as instituted). Press coverage of Lululemon's IPR on the '749 patent is actually coverage of IPR2024-00460, which was instituted August 9, 2024 and decided in Lululemon's favor; I summarize that coverage below because it is the same patent and the same underlying dispute.

The PTAB side. The Fashion Law reported on August 15, 2024 that the PTAB gave Lululemon's IPR of Nike's "Flyknit" patent (No. 8,266,749 B2) a green light over Nike's bid to have it tossed, finding a "reasonable likelihood" Lululemon would prevail on at least one claim, with Lululemon relying on the expired Nishida patent (No. 5,345,638). The Board's final written decision in IPR2024-00460 went further: as reflected in the Board's final decision filed in the S.D.N.Y. docket, the panel determined Lululemon showed by a preponderance that claims 1–21 of the '749 patent are unpatentable, and the New Balance court later described the case as "a patent that has been found unpatentable by the PTAB," staying its own litigation pending Nike's Federal Circuit appeal. Separately, The Fashion Law and Legal Era reported an August 5 Federal Circuit ruling in which the court (in an opinion by Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon, sitting by designation) affirmed a PTAB decision that Nike's "Adaptive Watch" patent claims were unpatentable in a Lululemon-filed IPR — a companion win in the same Nike–Lululemon IPR campaign, not a ruling on the '749 patent.

The district court side (which drove most of the press). The bulk of coverage concerns Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS (S.D.N.Y.). The Fashion Law reported that a New York federal jury's March 2025 verdict found Lululemon's Chargefeel, Strongfeel and Blissfeel sneakers infringed the '749 patent, awarding Nike $355,450 — far less than the 5% of revenues Nike sought — while rejecting infringement of the '046 patent; a Lululemon representative said the company would appeal. Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig and the American University Business Law Review put Nike's demand at roughly $2.8 million; AUBLR framed the verdict as signaling that Nike "has a stronghold in the market," while noting Lululemon's hope that the parallel PTAB review would invalidate the patent. That hope materialized: VitalLaw/IP Law Daily reported that Judge Arun Subramanian granted Lululemon's post-trial JMOL motion, holding the '749 patent invalid for obviousness (agreeing with Lululemon's experts on pre-2004 warp-knitting and "knit-to-cut" economics) and tossing the $355,450 verdict; Law360 covered the same March 31, 2026 ruling, and FashionUnited and SGIEurope both emphasized that the ruling "removes Lululemon's liability" for the damages and that Judge Subramanian found Nike "not entitled to any damages."

Where accounts differ, and reaction beyond the record. Several outlets go beyond the docket. The Australian legal commentary on Lexology characterized the case as notable for its "remarkably small settlement" (though it was a verdict, not a settlement), the rarity of patent trials by jury, and the fact that "the patent in question has now expired" (March 2024); it also noted Nike is enforcing the same patents against New Balance and Skechers, and that Lululemon announced it would not stop selling products and was "relatively satisfied" given the small award. SGIEurope attributes its account to "Reuters and others" and states Judge Subramanian ruled on March 31, while VitalLaw dates the opinion March 31, 2026 and the IIpla newsletter describes the reversal without a date — minor date inconsistencies across secondary sources. There is also a plain error worth flagging: Law360's item as republished states the jury awarded $335,450, whereas the verdict figure reported everywhere else is $355,450. AUBLR dates the verdict to "March 10, 2025" while The Fashion Law and others say March 7, 2025. Attributions I could not verify: I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, or Patently-O article on this dispute via search — SGIEurope's reference to Reuters is a secondhand citation, so I have not linked a Reuters URL. For IPR2024-00778 specifically, the only "coverage" is docket-aggregator data (GreyB/Patexia), reinforcing that the press treated this as a Nike–Lululemon story centered on IPR2024-00460 and the S.D.N.Y. case, not on New Balance's denied petition.

Sources

• On behalf of lululemon usa inc
• Nike vs Lululemon in the Athleisurewear Arena - Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
• Published on The National Law Review https://dev
• Lululemon Nabs Victory as Court Tosses Nike Sneaker Patent
• On behalf of lululemon usa inc
• Nike filed suit against New Balance on November 6, 2023, alleging that New Balance infringes nine patents directed to articles o...
• Lululemon Scores Coveted Win Against Nike in Flyknit Patent Fight
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Nike patent victory overturned in footwear dispute with Lululemon - Nike patent victory overturned in footwear dispute with Lululemon
• PATENT—S.D.N.Y.: Nike’s patent for knitting footwear ruled invalid and $355,000 jury verdict tossed
• Search results
• Lululemon Successfully Appeals $355,000 Verdict in Nike Flyknit Patent Case

There appears to be a discrepancy in the case number provided. The information available through web searches indicates that IPR2024-00778 is a case titled New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., challenging US Patent No. 8,266,749.

However, Lululemon USA Inc. is indeed challenging US Patent No. 8,266,749 in a separate Inter Partes Review proceeding, identified as IPR2024-00460, where Lululemon USA Inc. is the Petitioner. The counsel information below pertains to Lululemon USA Inc. as the Petitioner in IPR2024-00460, which challenges the same patent (US8266749) as specified in your prompt.

The counsel of record representing Lululemon USA Inc. in IPR2024-00460 are from Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP:

• Ali S. Razai

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by typical firm structure and prominence in related discussions).
  • Firm: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Orange County, CA (Irvine, CA).
  • Experience Note: Spoke with World IP Review about a favorable jury verdict for Lululemon in a patent dispute with Nike over "Flyknit" shoe technology, and noted the significance of claim construction in that dispute, as well as the unpatentability of claims in an inter partes review.

• Brandon G. Smith

  • Role: Pro Hac Vice (granted permission to appear).
  • Firm: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP.
  • Experience Note: Has over 9 years of experience as a patent litigator, representing clients in numerous patent litigation cases in U.S. District Courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is also counsel for Lululemon in co-pending litigation involving the '749 patent and is familiar with its subject matter.

• Joseph F. Jennings

  • Role: Counsel. (Note: A motion to withdraw Joseph F. Jennings as backup counsel was filed in IPR2024-00460, but he was listed on a filing dated October 9, 2024. His current active status might require further docket review beyond available snippets).
  • Firm: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA.
  • Experience Note: No specific experience note found in the provided snippets, beyond being listed as counsel in this IPR.

• Benjamin J. Everton

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA.
  • Experience Note: No specific experience note found in the provided snippets.

• Jacob L. Peterson

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA.
  • Experience Note: No specific experience note found in the provided snippets.

Nike, Inc., the defendant in IPR2024-00778, is represented by attorneys from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, along with in-house counsel.

Here is the counsel of record for Nike:

• Christopher J. Renk (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Note: Renk is identified as lead counsel for Nike in this IPR proceeding and has experience with patent litigation.

• Michael J. Harris (Backup Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Note: Harris is identified as backup counsel for Nike in this IPR.

• Aaron P. Bowling (Backup Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Note: Bowling is identified as backup counsel for Nike in this IPR.

Nike also has a robust in-house legal team that handles patent matters. Brian Morrison serves as Senior Counsel, Patents at Nike, focusing on preparing, prosecuting, and enforcing patents. While specific in-house attorneys may not be formally listed as counsel of record in PTAB filings in the same way as outside counsel, they play a significant role in managing and advising on intellectual property strategy and litigation. Other in-house IP counsel at Nike include those focused on IP transactions and licensing.