Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike Inc

Pointwise Ventures LLC, a New Mexico-based non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) formed in November 2023, has initiated patent infringement litigation against Nike Inc.. Pointwise Ventures is represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm associated with prolific patent litigation campaigns. Nike Inc. is a multinational corporation headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, and is globally recognized as the largest supplier of athletic shoes and apparel, also manufacturing sports equipment.

The core of the dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812, titled "Pointing and identification device." This patent generally describes a device, envisioned as a "camera mouse," that allows a user to point at an object in the physical world or on a display, capture its digital image, and transmit that image to a computer. The computer then processes the image to identify the object's absolute location or retrieve related information, enabling interactive engagement with visual media. The specific Nike products, services, or technologies accused of infringement were not detailed in the publicly available initial filings. However, Pointwise Ventures' prior lawsuits asserting the same patent have targeted defendants' visual search functionalities within their websites and platforms. Given Nike's extensive online presence and ventures into interactive and personalized consumer experiences, it is plausible the alleged infringement relates to digital interfaces or e-commerce tools utilizing visual identification.

The case, 1:26-cv-01782, was filed on March 4, 2026, in the New York Southern District Court. The assigned judge is not yet publicly known from the provided information. The Southern District of New York is known for its relatively fast median time-to-trial in patent cases, which at 16.7 months (based on a limited number of jury trials), is quicker than the 18-month statutory deadline for inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the PTAB. This could potentially influence litigation strategies, as a faster court timeline might reduce the likelihood of IPRs being instituted.

This case is notable as it represents Pointwise Ventures LLC's ongoing patent assertion campaign, following similar lawsuits against various other companies, including a voluntary dismissal against Neiman Marcus Group in the Northern District of Texas involving the same patent. The pattern suggests Pointwise Ventures is an active NPE. For Nike, while they are frequent litigants in intellectual property disputes, they are typically the plaintiff, aggressively defending their extensive portfolio related to footwear, apparel, and manufacturing technologies, including their well-known Flyknit patents. Being a defendant in an NPE assertion targeting visual search technology highlights a different facet of intellectual property risk for the athletic wear giant.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike Inc

Case Caption: Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike Inc
Case number: 1:26-cv-01782
Court: New York Southern District Court
Filed: 2026-03-04
Patents at issue: 8471812

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Pointwise Ventures LLC against Nike Inc. in the Southern District of New York has concluded with a settlement and subsequent dismissal with prejudice. A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding concerning the asserted patent was also settled and terminated.

Key Legal Developments:

2026-03-04: Filing of Complaint
Pointwise Ventures LLC initiated the patent infringement litigation against Nike Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812 B2, titled "Pointing and Identification Device".

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding:
Prior to the resolution of the district court case, a related IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01102, was filed against the same patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812 B2) by Google LLC against Pointwise Ventures LLC. This IPR was filed on June 6, 2025. The IPR was subsequently terminated due to settlement on August 14, 2025, before a decision on institution of trial was reached. This settlement in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent likely influenced the district court litigation.

Settlement and Dismissal (Post-Filing, Dates Not Fully Specified in Snippets):
While specific dates for the settlement notice and stipulation of dismissal within the Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike Inc case are not explicitly provided beyond the initial filing date, court records indicate that a "NOTICE of Settlement as to all" parties was filed, followed by a "STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Pointwise Ventures LLC". This indicates that the parties reached an agreement to resolve the dispute, leading to the case's final disposition.

Outcome:

The case Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike Inc (1:26-cv-01782) was concluded by settlement between the parties. Pointwise Ventures LLC filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled on the same grounds. The parallel IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01102) against the asserted patent was also terminated due to a settlement, reinforcing a broader resolution concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812 B2.

The plaintiff, Pointwise Ventures LLC, is represented by counsel from Rabicoff Law LLC.

Here is the counsel of record identified:

• Name: D. Isaac Rabicoff
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Rabicoff is the founder of Rabicoff Law LLC, which was recognized by Lex Machina as one of the top three most active patent litigation firms in 2017. He was also identified as the busiest attorney for plaintiffs in patent cases in the first half of 2021, according to Docket Navigator. He has led licensing campaigns against major technology companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung, and Google, and has successfully defeated the institution of numerous IPRs and CBMs, including petitions filed by Mastercard. He is a registered patent attorney and has appellate advocacy experience before the Federal and Seventh Circuits. His practice frequently involves representing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in patent infringement lawsuits. He was publicly reprimanded by the Virginia State Bar in 2022 for violating professional rules in a California patent infringement case, including issues related to filing amended complaints and pro hac vice admissions.

As of May 19, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Nike Inc. in Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Nike Inc, case number 1:26-cv-01782 in the New York Southern District Court, has not been explicitly identified in the initial filings available through general web search, such as the complaint which only lists the plaintiff's counsel.

However, major corporations like Nike typically engage specialized outside counsel for patent infringement defense, often from firms with strong intellectual property litigation practices. Nike also maintains an in-house legal department with dedicated intellectual property professionals.

While direct appearance filings for this specific case are not readily available in the provided search results, firms frequently representing Nike in intellectual property matters and known for robust patent litigation defense include:

Potential Outside Counsel Firms (based on general reputation and past work for Nike):

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Relevant Experience: Gibson Dunn has a highly regarded intellectual property group with a strong track record in patent litigation, representing leading technology and telecommunications companies. The firm is recognized for its expertise in trying cases in federal courts, including for clients like Nike. They are consistently ranked in top tiers for Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation in New York.

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Relevant Experience: Quinn Emanuel is a prominent litigation-focused firm, globally recognized for its patent litigation practice, frequently representing major technology companies as both plaintiffs and defendants. They are known for handling high-value and "bet-the-company" cases across various sectors, including pharmaceuticals, life sciences, and consumer technology. The firm has been ranked in top tiers for patent litigation in New York.

Nike Inc. In-House Counsel (General IP/Litigation Leadership):

While in-house counsel generally do not act as lead counsel in federal district court litigation, they manage outside counsel and play a critical strategic role.

• Rob Leinwand
  • Role: EVP, Chief Legal Officer
  • Firm: Nike, Inc. (In-house)
  • Note: Rob Leinwand has been with Nike since 2004, where he created and managed Nike's Employment Law and Global Litigation practice groups, handling sensitive legal matters for the company.
• Brian Morrison
  • Role: Counsel focused on patents
  • Firm: Nike, Inc. (In-house)
  • Note: Brian Morrison is part of Nike's Office of the General Counsel and focuses on how intellectual property, specifically patents, is protected and leveraged to maintain Nike's competitive edge.

As of the current date, without specific appearance filings from the court docket for this case, the named attorneys representing Nike Inc. have not been definitively identified.