Nike, Inc. v. New Balance

This patent infringement litigation, Nike, Inc. v. New Balance, pits two global giants in the athletic footwear industry against each other. Plaintiff Nike, Inc., an operating company and a leading designer, manufacturer, and marketer of athletic shoes, apparel, and equipment, initiated the lawsuit. Defendant New Balance, another prominent operating company specializing in athletic footwear and apparel, is accused of infringement.

The core of Nike's complaint centers on its "Flyknit" technology, which it claims took over a decade to develop and involves "high-strength fibers to create lightweight uppers with targeted areas of support, stretch and breathability." Nike alleges that New Balance has infringed on this technology by incorporating similar features into almost two dozen of its sneaker models. The accused products include various New Balance lines such as the Fresh Foam X 1080 v12, Fresh Foam X Vongo v5, FuelCell SuperComp Trainer, Tekela v4 Magia FG, Fresh Foam More Trail v3, Fresh Foam X More v4, FuelCell SD100 v5, and XC Seven v4. The lawsuit asserts nine patents, with US8266749 being one of them. Generally, these patents relate to methods for manufacturing knitted components for the upper part of footwear, aiming for enhanced performance, design, and aesthetics while reducing material waste.

The case was filed on November 6, 2023, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, bearing Case No. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK, and is presided over by Judge Judith E. Kobick. The venue is significant as New Balance is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. New Balance previously filed a partial motion to dismiss regarding claims related to three of the asserted patents ('350, '511, and '758), which was denied in August 2024. Currently, the case is subject to a stay until at least August 9, 2025, pending the resolution of several inter partes reviews (IPRs) concerning the asserted patents. Notably, one of the asserted patents, the '484 patent, has already been found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and a final written decision for the '749 patent has been issued in an IPR brought by Lululemon. This litigation is particularly notable as it highlights Nike's aggressive strategy to protect its Flyknit technology against competitors, having previously filed similar lawsuits against Adidas, Puma, and Lululemon, and concurrently suing Skechers. The dispute underscores the intense competition within the athletic footwear market, especially as New Balance has reportedly seen significant growth and gained market share in recent years.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Nike, Inc. v. New Balance (1:23-cv-12666-JEK)

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Nike, Inc. against New Balance in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case number 1:23-cv-12666-JEK, remains active but is currently stayed pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The litigation, initiated on November 6, 2023, involves nine Nike patents related to its Flyknit footwear technology, including U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749. Nike alleges that New Balance has infringed, and continues to infringe, these patents with almost two dozen sneaker models.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2023-11-06): Nike, Inc. filed its complaint alleging infringement of nine patents, including US8266749, by New Balance's Flyknit-related footwear. Prior to filing, Nike sent New Balance letters claiming infringement on January 31, March 3, and September 1, 2023.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Partial Motion to Dismiss (January 2024): New Balance filed a partial motion to dismiss claims related to three of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,907,350; 9,918,511; and 9,924,758), arguing that Nike's allegations of infringement were inconsistent with the language of the claimed technology.
• Denial of Partial Motion to Dismiss (2024-08-13): The court denied New Balance's partial motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged infringement, even assuming New Balance's interpretation of the patent scope.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Mid-March 2025): New Balance moved to stay the case pending the outcome of various IPR proceedings concerning six of the nine asserted patents.
• Motion to Stay Granted (2025-06-06): The court granted New Balance's motion to stay the entire action until August 9, 2025. The court reasoned that a stay would promote judicial efficiency by allowing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to potentially simplify or eliminate issues in the litigation through possible invalidation or narrowing of disputed claims. The court also noted that it made little sense to proceed with claim construction and discovery when two-thirds of the patents might be subject to IPR.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Markman Hearing Scheduled (2025-06-20): Before the stay was granted, the court had scheduled a Markman hearing for June 20, 2025. However, the order granting the stay specifically indicated that it made "little sense to proceed with the Markman hearing" during the pendency of the stay. It is therefore likely that the Markman hearing did not proceed as scheduled and will be revisited after the stay is lifted.

Discovery Milestones

• Initial Fact Discovery (September 2024 - Mid-March 2025): The parties engaged in initial fact discovery, serving one set of interrogatories in September 2024, and document production had begun by mid-March 2025, prior to the motion to stay. Further discovery was put on hold by the stay.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Multiple IPRs have been filed concerning the asserted patents, including US8266749, playing a significant role in the litigation's posture:

• IPR2016-00922 (Adidas) for US8266749: This IPR, filed by Adidas AG, resulted in an inter partes review certificate issued on April 19, 2021.
• IPR2024-00460 (Lululemon) for US8266749: Lululemon USA Inc. filed this IPR petition on January 12, 2024. The district court's stay order anticipated a final written decision for this IPR by August 9, 2025.
• IPR2024-00778 (New Balance) for US8266749: New Balance Athletics, Inc. filed its own IPR petition for US8266749 on June 4, 2024. The district court's stay order indicated that an institution decision for this IPR was expected by August 9, 2025.
• IPR2025-00020 (New Balance) for US9907350 (and other patents): New Balance also filed an IPR petition for U.S. Patent No. 9,907,350 (among other patents). An institution decision for this IPR was due on June 20, 2025.
• Other IPRs by Skechers: The court's stay order also noted that Skechers, a non-party shoe seller, had filed five IPR petitions against other patents in this litigation, specifically IPR2025-00141 (for the '749 patent), IPR2025-00142 (for the '484 patent), and IPR2025-00143 (for the '562 patent), among others, with institution decisions expected by August 9, 2025. The stay was granted partly due to the expectation of these various IPR decisions.

Current Posture

The case is currently stayed in its entirety until August 9, 2025. At that time, the parties and the court anticipate having more clarity regarding the outcome of the pending IPRs, which may significantly impact the scope and future direction of the patent infringement litigation. As of today's date, June 17, 2026, the specific outcomes of the IPRs with expected decisions by August 9, 2025, and any subsequent developments in the litigation post-stay, are not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results.

Nike, Inc. Represented by Arnold & Porter in Patent Infringement Suit Against New Balance

Nike, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in its patent infringement lawsuit against New Balance Athletics, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK).

The counsel of record identified for Nike includes:

• Aaron Patrick Bowling (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Boston, given the court's location, though firm profiles often list multiple offices.
  • Relevant Experience: Bowling is listed as counsel for Nike in this specific case.

• Fred Kelly (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter
  • Relevant Experience: Named as part of the team advising Nike in this patent infringement suit.

• Christopher Renk (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter
  • Relevant Experience: Named as part of the team advising Nike in this patent infringement suit.

• Michael Harris (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter
  • Relevant Experience: Named as part of the team advising Nike in this patent infringement suit.

• Lindsey Staubach (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter
  • Relevant Experience: Named as part of the team advising Nike in this patent infringement suit.

• Kathleen Duffy (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter
  • Relevant Experience: Named as part of the team advising Nike in this patent infringement suit.

• Miranda Hallett (Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter
  • Relevant Experience: Named as part of the team advising Nike in this patent infringement suit.

The specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, of counsel) beyond "counsel" are not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets for each individual attorney in this particular case, but the team from Arnold & Porter collectively represents the plaintiff.

New Balance is represented by a team from Goodwin Procter LLP. The attorneys of record include:

• Douglas Kline (Lead Counsel) - Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP. He is based in Boston, MA. Kline has experience litigating patent matters across the US, securing preliminary injunctions, declaratory and summary judgments, and advantageous settlements.
• Amadou Diaw (Counsel) - Attorney at Goodwin Procter LLP. He is based in Boston, MA.
• Jacqueline Genovese Bova (Counsel) - Attorney at Goodwin Procter LLP. She is based in Boston, MA.
• Sarah Casey (Counsel) - Attorney at Goodwin Procter LLP. She is based in Boston, MA.

Goodwin Procter LLP has a well-established Patent Litigation team and is also highly regarded for its activity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has substantial experience before the Federal Circuit and the International Trade Commission (ITC).