Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., involves two prominent operating companies in the athletic apparel and footwear industry. Nike, Inc., the plaintiff, is a global leader in athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services. Lululemon USA Inc., the defendant, is a Canadian-American multinational athletic apparel retailer that has been aggressively expanding its product offerings, including its entry into the sneaker market in 2022, directly competing with Nike. The accused products in this case were several models from Lululemon's initial footwear line, specifically the Blissfeel, Blissfeel SE, Blissfeel 2, Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Mid Lunar New Year, Chargefeel Low, Chargefeel Low 2.0, and Strongfeel shoes.

The primary patent asserted by Nike was U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 (the '749 patent), which broadly relates to an article of footwear featuring a textile upper. More specifically, it covers a method of manufacturing a textile element with different knitted textures to provide structure and support in specific areas of the shoe, a technology often referred to as Nike's "Flyknit". While other patents were initially mentioned in the complaint, the jury's verdict and subsequent post-trial motions primarily focused on the '749 patent. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) before Judge Arun Subramanian. This venue is notable for handling high-stakes patent disputes between major corporations, underscoring the commercial importance of the technology at issue in the competitive sportswear market.

The case is particularly noteworthy due to its high-profile parties and the dynamic competitive landscape of the athletic footwear industry, with Lululemon challenging Nike's long-standing dominance. A jury initially found in favor of Nike, awarding $355,450 in damages for Lululemon's infringement of the '749 patent. However, in a significant post-trial development, the district court granted Lululemon's motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling the '749 patent invalid due to obviousness and consequently overturning the jury's verdict and negating the damages award. This litigation also occurred amidst a broader intellectual property conflict between the two companies, with Nike having previously filed a separate lawsuit against Lululemon in January 2022 concerning its Mirror home fitness technology. Furthermore, Lululemon initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-00460) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the '749 patent based on obviousness.

Nike v. Lululemon: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Nike, Inc. initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Lululemon USA Inc. on January 26, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Nike alleged that Lululemon's Blissfeel, Blissfeel SE, Blissfeel 2, Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Mid Lunar New Year, Chargefeel Low, Chargefeel Low 2.0, and Strongfeel shoes infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 ("the '749 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046 ("the '046 patent"). The specific date for Lululemon's answer and counterclaims in this particular case (1:23-cv-00771-AS) is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but the litigation proceeded to trial, indicating these pleadings were filed.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
Lululemon filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against several Nike patents, including US8266749. There was an initial motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of IPRs, which was granted on February 24, 2023, by Judge Ronnie Abrams in a related case (No. 22-cv-00082). However, in the instant case (1:23-cv-00771-AS), Judge Arun Subramanian, who later presided over the case, denied a motion to stay pending IPR on October 3, 2024. Judge Subramanian maintained a "rocket docket" case schedule.

Claim Construction (Markman):
A Markman hearing regarding the challenged claims was scheduled for July 1, 2024. While the specific order detailing the claim constructions is not provided in the search results, the case proceeded through discovery and trial, indicating that claim construction was addressed.

Discovery Milestones:
The court set a "rocket docket" schedule for discovery. Fact discovery was to be completed by July 17, 2024, and all discovery was to be completed by September 25, 2024.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
A jury trial concluded with a verdict delivered on March 7, 2025. The jury found that Lululemon USA Inc. infringed claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 and awarded Nike damages of $355,450. The jury also found that Lululemon did not infringe claims 1, 8, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046. Importantly, the jury rejected Lululemon's arguments that the asserted patents were invalid.

Following the verdict, both parties filed post-trial motions. Nike sought to amend the judgment for supplemental damages and interest or, alternatively, a new trial on pre-suit damages. Lululemon moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the invalidity of the '749 patent based on obviousness, and for a new trial.

Judgment & Outcome:
On March 31, 2026, the district court (Judge Arun Subramanian) granted Lululemon's motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 invalid based on obviousness. This decision effectively overturned the jury's infringement verdict and the damages award for Nike. The court found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known about warp-knitting and its application to shoe manufacturing at the time Nike applied for the patent. All other outstanding motions were denied as moot. Final judgment was entered on March 31, 2026, confirming that Nike was not entitled to any damages, and the case was closed. The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of this disposition.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:
Lululemon USA Inc. filed an IPR petition (IPR2024-00460) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 on January 11, 2024. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR on August 8, 2024. A Final Written Decision was issued on August 5, 2025, and this decision has been appealed to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 26-1275). The specific outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal for IPR2024-00460 is not yet available beyond its "Appealed" status.

Here is the counsel of record representing Nike, Inc. in Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. (1:23-cv-00771-AS):

• Brandon G. Smith

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Unspecified in search results, but associated with Nike. Further search indicates he is likely in-house counsel for Nike.
  • Note: Regularly involved in Nike's patent enforcement and intellectual property matters.

• Christopher J. Renk

  • Role: Attorney of record for Patent Owner (Nike, Inc.), likely lead or senior counsel in patent litigation.
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The firm has offices in multiple locations, including New York.
  • Note: A prominent patent litigator, he was identified as counsel for Nike in a related PTAB proceeding concerning the '749 patent.

• Michael J. Harris

  • Role: Attorney of record for Patent Owner (Nike, Inc.), likely lead or senior counsel in patent litigation.
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The firm has offices in multiple locations, including New York.
  • Note: Also identified as counsel for Nike in a related PTAB proceeding concerning the '749 patent, indicating expertise in patent disputes.

There was also a mention of "Bowling Counsel for Plaintiff Nike, Inc." in one document. This appears to be a possible typo or an incomplete reference. No specific attorney named "Bowling" could be definitively identified as counsel for Nike in this case based on the provided search results.

Here is the counsel of record representing Lululemon USA Inc. in Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. (1:23-cv-00771-AS):

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

• Ali S. Razai

  • Role: Partner, lead counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Orange County, CA
  • Experience Note: A first-chair litigator whose practice focuses on high-stakes intellectual property disputes, including patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, and has a background in molecular biology and antibody engineering. He was involved in the successful overturning of the jury verdict in this case.

• Jason C. White

  • Role: Partner, lead counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: A first-chair trial lawyer leading litigation teams in IP disputes involving utility patents, design patents, trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets. He has served as lead counsel in numerous jury and bench trials in district courts and before the ITC.

• Benjamin J. Everton

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Orange County, CA
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in IP disputes before federal district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, focusing on patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and technology disputes. He has a mechanical engineering background.

• Jacob L. Peterson

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Seattle, WA
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in IP disputes with a focus on patent matters before federal courts, the PTAB, and the ITC, and advises across diverse industries, including consumer products and medical devices.

• Brandon G. Smith

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Orange County, CA (also listed with a Costa Mesa, CA address in some records)
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in IP litigation, including patent, trademark, and trade secret disputes in federal district courts and US Courts of Appeals. He has a biomedical engineering background.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

• Jeffrey T. Thomas
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Orange County, CA
  • Experience Note: An experienced trial lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property, antitrust, unfair competition, and general commercial litigation, including patent and trade secret litigation.

While Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP was counsel for Lululemon, specific involvement of attorney Jane Kim in this particular patent infringement case as patent litigation counsel could not be definitively confirmed from the publicly available search results.