Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is a patent infringement lawsuit between two prominent operating companies in the global athletic footwear industry. Plaintiff Nike, Inc., a leading global designer, marketer, and distributor of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services, accuses Defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc., a Southern California-based Fortune 500 company known for its diverse range of lifestyle and performance footwear, apparel, and accessories, of infringing its patented "Flyknit" technology. Nike alleges that Skechers' footwear models, including its Ultra Flex 3.0, Glide Step Sparkle, and Slip-Ins lines, infringe its intellectual property.

The core of the dispute revolves around Nike's "Flyknit" technology, which the company claims took over a decade to develop and is designed to create lightweight, strong, breathable, and supportive shoe uppers using high-strength fibers, while also reducing material waste. In this specific action, Nike asserts six utility patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,266,749; 9,060,562; 9,510,636; 9,730,484; 9,918,511; and 9,986,781. Generally, these patents cover aspects of knitted shoe uppers and methods of manufacturing them, focusing on the combination of lightweight design with targeted areas of support, stretch, and breathability. The case is currently being litigated in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-09346, presided over by Judge André Birotte Jr. and Magistrate Judge Paul V. Cohen. This venue is notable as it is a major hub for intellectual property litigation, frequently handling complex patent cases with experienced judges and a reputation for efficient trial resolution.

This case is part of an ongoing "sneaker wars" saga, highlighting the fierce competition and extensive intellectual property disputes within the athletic footwear market, where Nike has a history of litigating against competitors like Adidas, Puma, and Lululemon over its Flyknit technology. Skechers has responded to the lawsuit by denying infringement and asserting the invalidity of Nike's patents, characterizing the suit as an attempt by Nike to stifle legitimate competition. Significantly, Skechers has filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of all six asserted Nike utility patents, leading the district court to stay the litigation pending the PTAB's decisions on these IPRs. This IPR linkage underscores the strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB proceedings in patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

The patent infringement litigation between Nike, Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09346, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, has seen several significant developments since its inception in late 2023. The case, which initially involved six Nike utility patents related to "Flyknit" technologies, including U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749, has experienced a stay, parallel PTAB proceedings, and a subsequent lifting of the stay for the remaining patents.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2023-11-06): Nike, Inc. initiated the lawsuit, alleging that various Skechers shoe designs infringed six of its utility patents, including US8266749. Nike sought injunctive relief, damages (including treble damages), pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.
• Answer and Counterclaims (2024-01-12): Skechers U.S.A., Inc. responded to Nike's complaint by denying the allegations and filing twelve counterclaims. Skechers sought declaratory judgments that the asserted patents were invalid and that its products did not infringe the asserted claims.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Skechers filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) on inter partes review (IPR) petitions it had filed against Nike's patents.
• Order Granting Motion to Stay (2025-02-05): The District Court granted Skechers' motion to stay the case, citing the early stages of discovery and the pending PTAB decisions. At the time of the stay, fact discovery had been extended to April 16, 2025, and a trial date was set for February 9, 2026.

Claim Construction (Markman)

• Claim Construction Hearing (2024-09-20): A Markman hearing was held by the District Court to construe the claims of the asserted patents.
• Ruling Not Yet Issued: As of early 2025 (February 2025 SEC filings), the District Court had not yet issued its claim construction ruling.

Discovery Milestones

• Early Stages of Discovery (Early 2025): At the time the case was stayed, discovery was described as being in its early stages. Fact discovery was initially scheduled to close on January 15, 2025, but was subsequently extended to April 16, 2025. Expert discovery was set to conclude by April 18, 2025. No depositions or third-party discovery had been taken prior to the stay.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Effect on Litigation

• Skechers' IPR Petitions (Early November 2024): Skechers filed petitions with the PTAB seeking inter partes review of each of the six Nike utility patents asserted in the district court litigation.
• PTAB Institution Decisions (May and June 2025): The PTAB instituted inter partes review for one of the Nike utility patents asserted against Skechers but declined to institute review for the others.
• Dismissal of Claims and Lifting of Stay (Post-June 2025): Following the PTAB's decisions, Nike informed the District Court that it was dismissing its infringement claims against Skechers with respect to the patent for which IPR was instituted. Consequently, the District Court lifted the stay, and the litigation on the remaining patents is set to resume.
• IPR for US8266749 (IPR2025-00141): U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749, specifically at issue in this case, is the subject of an IPR petition filed by Skechers (IPR2025-00141) on November 4, 2024. A final written decision for this IPR is expected by March 25, 2026.
• Other Parallel IPRs for US8266749: The '749 patent is also involved in other IPR proceedings, including IPR2024-00460 filed by Lululemon USA Inc. and IPR2024-00778 filed by New Balance Athletics Inc. Lululemon's IPR for the '749 patent was filed on January 12, 2024, instituted on August 9, 2024, with a final decision issued on August 6, 2025, which has been appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Current Posture

The case is currently active. The District Court stay was lifted for the patents where IPR was not instituted or for which Nike dismissed its claims. The litigation will now resume for the patents that were not subject to instituted IPRs or were not dismissed. The Markman ruling, while a hearing was held in September 2024, had not been issued as of February 2025. The status of its issuance following the lifting of the stay is not yet public. Given the current date of June 17, 2026, the final written decision for Skechers' IPR on US8266749 (IPR2025-00141) would have been due by March 25, 2026. The outcome of this IPR and the impact of the other IPRs on the '749 patent will be significant for the ongoing district court litigation.

The following attorneys represent Nike, Inc. as counsel of record in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09346:

• Chris Renk

  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Renk is a first-chair trial lawyer focusing on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, false advertising, and unfair competition cases, with experience in athletic footwear and textiles processing. He is a registered patent attorney and has been recognized as a "Patent Star" and "Trademark Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.

• Michael J. Harris

  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Harris is an experienced trial attorney with a focus on complex intellectual property and antitrust lawsuits, including high-stakes utility patent, design patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, and trade secret cases. He has played a lead role in hundreds of complex matters and has experience with knitted footwear technology. He has been recognized as a "Patent Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.

Irell & Manella LLP is representing defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc. in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09346, out of their Los Angeles office.

The following attorneys are counsel of record for Skechers:

• Morgan Chu (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Widely regarded as a leading intellectual property litigator, Morgan Chu has been lead trial counsel in numerous high-profile patent cases, securing significant verdicts and settlements exceeding $9 billion for clients, and is described as "beyond doubt the most gifted trial lawyer in the USA." He previously represented Skechers in a patent lawsuit that resulted in a royalty-free settlement and in a trademark case where the asserted trademark was invalidated.

• Samuel K. Lu (Partner)

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Samuel K. Lu represents clients in patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters. He has specifically represented Skechers in multiple design and utility patent infringement lawsuits involving athletic shoes, including the present case and a previous trademark infringement lawsuit against Converse Inc.

• Keith A. Orso (Partner)

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Keith A. Orso practices patent law within the firm's litigation and intellectual property groups, with experience across a wide array of technologies including computer architecture, communications, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. He is also a member of the firm's Management Committee.

• Thomas C. Werner (Discovery Counsel)

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Thomas C. Werner advises clients on discovery matters, particularly electronic discovery and electronic document management, for intellectual property litigations, including patent and trade secret cases in U.S. district courts, ITC investigations, and PTAB proceedings.