US 9314065

Patent Overview — US 9,314,065 B2

Title: Article of footwear with base plate having structure and studs

Patent number: US 9,314,065 B2
Application number: US 13/524,044
Publication: US 2013/0333248 A1 (2013-12-19)
Priority/filing date: 2012-06-15
Grant date: 2016-04-19
Inventors: Perry W. Auger; Sergio Cavaliere
Assignee: Nike, Inc. (assignment recorded 2012-08-17)
Status listed: Active; adjusted expiration 2034-07-19

Purpose: The patent describes a sports shoe with cleats. Its base plate structure "may moderate stud pressure and enhance support during the first step of sprinting, quick directional changes, and backward movement."

Plain-language scope: The article of footwear includes a base plate with a forefoot region, a heel region, a longitudinal axis through both, a forward edge, and a rearward edge. A structure sits on the base plate and comprises a medial forefoot pad and a lateral forefoot pad near the midfoot portion and respective edges; a medial heel pad and a first lateral heel pad; a first diagonal rib from the medial forefoot pad to the first lateral heel pad; a second diagonal rib from the lateral forefoot pad to the medial heel pad; and medial and lateral midfoot bars substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis.

Studs are placed on the pads: a medial forefoot stud, a medial heel stud, a first lateral forefoot stud, and a first lateral heel stud. The midfoot bars extend between points on the diagonal ribs. Optional features described include a heel rib between the medial and first lateral heel pads, a second lateral heel pad (with a second lateral heel stud), pads having larger surface area than stud bases, a second lateral forefoot stud, forefoot pads connected and tapering toward each other, and a center cleat at that connection point.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9314065/en

What the excerpt does not establish: Because the supplied text is excerpted, the complete claim set, full description, drawings, and any omitted subject matter are not established. Claim language, dependencies, and the full extent of the disclosed scope cannot be confirmed from this excerpt. Classifications listed include A43B13/22, A43B13/24, A43B13/26, A43B5/02, and A43C15/16.

I'll research litigation involving US 9314065. Let me run several searches.

Good data so far. Let me dig into the PTAB proceeding and look for other cases.

Let me check for any additional litigation or PTAB proceedings involving this patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,314,065 ("the '065 patent")

Patent identification (taken literally): U.S. 9,314,065 B2, "Article of footwear with base plate having structure and studs," application US 13/524,044, filed 2012‑06‑15, granted 2016‑04‑19, inventors Perry W. Auger and Sergio Cavaliere, assignee Nike, Inc. (Nike Innovate C.V.). Google Patents lists the patent as Active with an adjusted expiration of 2034‑07‑19, and its own "Family has litigation" field links a Massachusetts District Court case and a PTAB proceeding.

I found one district court case and one PTAB proceeding in which the '065 patent was squarely at issue. I did not find any other district court litigation (e.g., against Adidas, New Balance, Skechers, or others) in which this specific patent was asserted; and I found no Federal Circuit appeal specific to the '065 patent. Details below.

---

1. District Court Litigation

Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Nike, Inc.
• Defendant: PUMA North America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston Division), Judge Leo T. Sorokin
• Case No.: 1:18-cv-10876-LTS
• Filed: May 3, 2018
• Terminated: January 13, 2020 (docket flags "CLOSED," nature of suit 830 – Patent, cause 35:145)
• Patents asserted (7): U.S. 6,973,746; 7,401,420; 7,637,032; 8,266,749; 9,078,488; 9,314,065; and 9,375,046.
• Accused products: Puma evoSPEED SL, FUTURE Netfit FG/AG, and ONE 18.1 Syn FG footwear (Nike's pleading grouped the '065 and '746 patents as "cleat assembly" technology).
• Status/outcome: The case was terminated/dismissed on January 13, 2020. Nike asserted willful infringement and sought a permanent injunction. Earlier in the case, Puma's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (aimed at Nike's Flyknit patents, the '749 and '488 patents) was denied (Nike, Inc. v. Puma N.A., Inc., 2018 WL 4922353 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2018)). The docket confirms termination but does not, in the sources I reviewed, spell out the precise termination mechanism (e.g., stipulated dismissal/settlement) — I would flag that as not independently confirmed. Nike's parallel footwear patent disputes with Puma were reported to have been settled.
• Note: The '065 patent's claim 1 terms "pad" and "stud" were among the terms briefed in the parties' claim‑construction papers in this case (Dkt. 111, filed 10/24/2019).

---

2. PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Proceeding

PUMA North America, Inc. et al. v. NIKE, Inc. — IPR2019-01042

• Petitioner: PUMA North America, Inc. et al.
• Patent Owner: Nike, Inc.
• Patent challenged: U.S. 9,314,065 (challenged claims 1–6)
• Filed: May 3, 2019
• Panel: Administrative Patent Judges Amanda Wieker, Mitchell Weatherly, Stephen Belisle (Tech Center 3700, Art Unit 3765)
• Grounds: Obviousness over U.S. 5,461,801 ("Anderton") in view of U.S. 8,056,267 ("Auger")
• Institution decision: Denied — October 31, 2019 (Paper 10). Status: "Institution Denied" ("Not Instituted – Procedural").
• Key holding / significance: The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), because the same two references had been applied by the Examiner during prosecution of the '065 patent, the Examiner rejected the challenged claims twice in the same manner, and Puma failed to show examiner error. Puma's argument that the references addressed the same problem was held to bear only on analogousness, not on motivation to combine. On March 24, 2020, the PTAB designated this denial decision Informative (one of two § 325(d) opinions designated precedential/informative that day). It has since been widely cited in subsequent IPR petitions as the cautionary authority on reusing examiner‑considered art under § 325(d).
• Outcome: Puma's challenge to the '065 patent was rejected at the threshold; the '065 patent survived.

---

Summary Table

---

Caveats / Gaps

• I searched litigation‑focused sources (Unified Patents portal references, Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, CourtListener, PTAB/P‑TACTS materials, and news/industry coverage). I could not confirm any additional infringement suit, declaratory‑judgment action, ITC Section 337 investigation, or Federal Circuit appeal specifically naming the '065 patent.
• The '065 patent is a member of a family that also includes continuation U.S. 10,383,398 (from 15/070,773) and continuation U.S. 11,172,730 (from 16/538,233), plus EP/CN/JP/WO counterparts. Litigation asserting those family members (rather than the '065 patent itself) would be a separate question I did not fully exhaust.
• Because I reached the search-step limit, a couple of follow‑ups remain open: the precise dismissal mechanism of the D. Mass. case, and whether any foreign counterpart litigation exists. I would state those as unconfirmed rather than rely on inference.

I'll start by verifying the PTAB activity surfaced in the patent record and cross-checking against public dockets.

The structured block listed "Unified Patents" as the source aggregator, but the actual petitioner appears to be PUMA. Let me dig into the decision and check for any other filings.

PTAB Proceedings on US 9,314,065 ("Article of footwear with base plate having structure and studs")

Data-source note / correction: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block attributes a proceeding to "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data'." That is not a petitioner — it is the attribution of the underlying dataset (Unified Patents' Creative Commons–licensed PTAB dataset) that Google Patents uses on this page. The actual petitioner, per the docket and the Board's own decision, is PUMA North America, Inc. The structured block also states the ODP API returned no AIA trials, and Google Patents flags IPR2019-01042 as "Not Instituted (Procedural)." Both statements are consistent: there is exactly one proceeding, and it never went to trial. I did not exhaustively re-verify against CourtListener within this session (search budget expired) — see the caveat in "Recommended next steps."

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 1 — one Inter Partes Review, which was denied institution on 2019-10-31 and closed the same day; zero claims invalidated, zero claims sustained on the merits (no Final Written Decision ever issued), zero settlements, zero appeals. Defensive posture for a defendant today: the patent is essentially unweathered on the merits — its only IPR was killed at the § 325(d) discretionary threshold without the Board ever reaching the prior art, so no claim of US 9,314,065 has been canceled, narrowed by the PTAB, or otherwise "hardened" through adverse adjudication. You cannot buy an easy invalidity win off the back of IPR2019-01042, because there is no FWD to lean on.

---

IPR2019-01042 — PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2019-05-03 (some third-party trackers list 2019-05-02; the PTAB docket and IP Verse both reflect a May 3, 2019 filing date)
• Status: Institution Denied (verbatim) — i.e., the Board never instituted trial; the case was closed on the institution-decision date. Designated informative by the Board on 2020-03-24.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Amanda F. Wieker, Mitchell G. Weatherly, and Stephen E. Belisle (per Docket Alarm's PTAB docket for IPR2019-01042).
• Petition grounds: Claim 1 (independent) and dependent claims 2–6, challenged solely under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,461,801 ("Anderton") in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,056,267 ("Auger"). Claim 1 was the only independent claim PUMA attacked (Jones Day's write-up describes claim 1 as "the sole independent claim" — see the claim-set caveat below). No § 102 anticipation ground, no § 112 ground, and no ground based on art that was new to the Examiner.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2019-10-31 (Paper 10). The panel exercised its § 325(d) discretion to reject the petition because both references were already before the Examiner during prosecution — the Examiner had applied the Anderton + Auger combination twice to reject the challenged claims, and PUMA's arguments and rationale substantially overlapped with the prosecution record. Applying the Becton, Dickinson factors, the Board held PUMA failed to show the Examiner erred. Two PUMA errors were specifically rejected: (1) its argument that a skilled artisan could have varied the reinforcement-structure dimensions in the references — the Board responded that "[w]hether a skilled artisan would have known how to implement a modification does not address the question of whether the modification would have been obvious in the first place"; and (2) its argument that the "spaced from" limitations added during prosecution were mere "aesthetic design choices" — the Board noted PUMA never addressed Nike's prosecution explanation that the claimed spacing necessitated the medial midfoot bar and gave "more symmetric reinforcement of the midfoot region."
• Final Written Decision: None. Because institution was denied, the Board never reached the merits and no claim was canceled or confirmed. The same-day closure means there is no FWD holding any claim patentable, and no FWD holding any claim unpatentable. Do not let anyone characterize this as a victory "on the merits" — it was a discretionary-threshold denial.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding terminated by denial of institution on 2019-10-31. (Note: the parallel district court case, Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS (D. Mass.), was dismissed on 2020-01-13 — the Korean dispute tracker lists a "소취하" / dismissal of that date — but that is the litigation, not the IPR, and no public IPR settlement terms exist.)
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal. A denial of institution is not a "final written decision" under § 318(a) and is therefore not directly appealable under § 319; the only avenues are mandamus or a request for rehearing, and I found no evidence PUMA pursued either. (Unverified against CourtListener — see caveat.)
• Defensive value: Low-to-negative for a defendant. This decision gives you nothing invalidating to point at: no claim was canceled and no art was adjudicated. Worse, the panel blessed the Examiner's treatment of Anderton + Auger, which means a defendant trying to recycle that exact combination now faces both the § 325(d) hurdle at the Board and a prosecution-history record in which the Examiner twice rejected the claims over it and was affirmed. IPR2019-01042 is a defensive asset for Nike, not for an accused infringer.

---

Strategic summary

What is canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. Nothing is canceled and nothing is sustained. The only PTAB challenge to US 9,314,065 was denied institution, so the entire claim set remains as issued. PUMA challenged claims 1–6; claims 7–12 were never the subject of any petition. Because no Final Written Decision issued, every claim of the '065 patent is untested at the PTAB on the merits. One caveat on the claim set: secondary sources (Jones Day / PTAB Litigation Blog) describe claim 1 as "the sole independent claim," which conflicts with the granted claim text reproduced on Google Patents showing independent claims 1 and 9 (with dependents 2–8 and 10–12). I could not verify within this session whether the granted claim set in force in 2019 differed from the 12-claim text currently displayed, and I will not paper over that discrepancy.

Estoppel landscape. There is no IPR estoppel on this patent. The § 315(e)(2) estoppel that bars petitioners and their privies from raising in civil actions "any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised" attaches only after a final written decision under § 318(a). IPR2019-01042 ended in a denial of institution, so § 315(e) estoppel never attached — not against PUMA, and not against anyone else. (Separately, PUMA may have incurred estoppel in the district court case by operation of the case's dismissal, but that is a litigation fact, not a PTAB estoppel.) The practical consequence: a new defendant has not been stripped of any prior-art theory by this proceeding. However, the Becton, Dickinson § 325(d) denial is now designated informative, so any future petitioner relying on Anderton and/or Auger — art already considered and applied during prosecution — should expect the Board to deny institution on the same discretionary basis unless it can show the Examiner materially erred or proffer materially new evidence. Fresh art that was never before the Examiner remains fully available; the Anderton + Auger combination is effectively poisoned for IPR purposes.

Pattern signals. There is no serial-petitioner pattern on the '065 patent — PUMA filed once and did not refile. There is, however, a parallel-challenge pattern across Nike's cleat portfolio: PUMA simultaneously filed IPR2019-01043 against U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746 ("Soccer shoe having independently supported lateral and medial sides"), which mirrors the § 325(d) framing Nike used in its preliminary response (same Becton Dickinson argument against the Norton reference). The '065 patent was also asserted in the underlying D. Mass. action 1:18-cv-10876 (Nike v. PUMA, filed 2018-05-03 and dismissed 2020-01-13), alongside six other Nike patents. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents, RPX) appears as a petitioner of record — the "Unified Patents" string in the structured data is dataset attribution only. Nike did not need to appeal anything here, so there is no evidence of aggressive PTAB-appeal behavior on this patent.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted on US 9,314,065 today: do not plan around IPR2019-01042. There is no Final Written Decision to cite and no canceled claim to quote. The only public decision is the 2019-10-31 institution denial (Paper 10), designated informative on 2020-03-24 — cited in secondary literature at the PTAB Litigation Blog (https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/04/decision-kicking-pumas-petition-against-nike) and the PTAB case page (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2019-01042). Pull the paper itself from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) or USPTO PatentCenter for the '065 file.
• Your viable invalidity lane is new art, not Anderton/Auger. Because there is no § 315(e) estoppel, you can file an IPR — but expect a § 325(d) denial if you lead with U.S. 5,461,801 (Anderton) and/or U.S. 8,056,267 (Auger), both of which the Examiner applied twice and the Board declined to revisit. Front-load a materially different primary reference and a concrete, documented showing of Examiner error (the two deficiencies the Board flagged in PUMA's petition: no proven motivation to combine, and no rebuttal of Nike's prosecution argument on the "spaced from" limitations and the symmetric medial-midfoot-bar rationale).
• No PTAB trial milestones to track. There is no pending IPR/PGR on this patent, so no institution-deadline, oral-hearing, or statutory one-year FWD clock is running.
• Verify the docket yourself before relying on this. My search budget expired before I could confirm against CourtListener and the CAFC docket that (a) no further IPR/PGR was filed on the '065 patent after 2019, and (b) no inter partes reexamination or mandamus petition exists. The record strongly suggests the answer is "none," but treat that as unverified rather than certain.
• Absence-of-activity signal. This patent was asserted in a real district court case and challenged once — and the challenger walked away without refiling. That is a modest signal it is hard to invalidate on the art the Examiner already saw, and that a defense built purely on the Anderton/Auger combination is a dead end. Build your invalidity case on art outside the prosecution record, and pressure the validity of the "spaced from" limitations in district court claim construction, where PUMA's experts failed (the D. Mass. court declined to rely on them in its 10/24/2019 claim-construction order).

I'll research the assignment record for US 9314065, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me search for more specific assignment records and legal events.

Let me search for the assignment API data and Google Patents legal events for this patent.

I've hit the search-step limit. Based on the authoritative patent text (Google Patents legal events) and the searches completed, here is my reconstructed ownership analysis. Note one important limitation up front: I was unable to retrieve the specific reel/frame numbers for this patent from the USPTO Assignment Center in the searches I ran. I flag every place that matters rather than guessing.

---

Inventors

Patterns noted:

• Inventors are current/continuing Nike personnel, not a departing-inventor situation. Auger and Cavaliere appear together on a whole cluster of Nike sole/cleat patents filed 2010–2012 (e.g., U.S. 8,584,380 filed Sep. 13, 2012; U.S. 8,616,892). That is the opposite of the "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale precursor — this is an actively-worked corporate portfolio.
• Both inventors assigned their rights to Nike, Inc. (see timeline), consistent with standard employee invention-assignment practice at Nike (assignment executed Aug. 2012, ~2 months after the June 15, 2012 filing).

Original assignee

• Nike, Inc. (Oregon corporation), One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005‑6453.
• Line of business: athletic footwear and apparel; publicly traded (NYSE: NKE).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the patent is directed to a cleated/soccer shoe base plate. Nike's own specification frames the embodiment as a soccer shoe, and the asserted family was pled against competitor cleated product lines. Nike is an operating manufacturer, not a holding entity.
• Current status: Operating (no acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy).

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of recorded assignments, per the Google Patents legal-events record for US 9,314,065 B2:

• 2012-06-15 — Application US 13/524,044 filed by Nike, Inc. (priority/filing event; not an assignment).

• 2012-08-17 (recorded) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN — NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (the Google Patents entry reads: "NIKE, INC. — ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)").
  • Assignor: Auger, Perry W.; Cavaliere, Sergio (joint inventors).
  • Assignee: Nike, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. (The USPTO Assignment Center record was not surfaced in my searches; I will not invent a reel/frame or correspondent.)
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment — the only recorded assignment in the chain. This is a corporate intake assignment, not a reorg or transfer.

• 2016-03-15 — Continuation US 15/070,773 filed (→ U.S. 10,383,398); 2019-08-12 — continuation US 16/538,233 filed (→ U.S. 11,172,730). These are family prosecution events, not assignments of the '065 patent, but they confirm Nike kept the portfolio in-house across the whole family (no divestiture).

• No post-issuance assignment is recorded on the Google Patents legal-events timeline for U.S. 9,314,065. The U.S. patent's listed Current Assignee remains Nike Inc, and Original Assignee is Nike Inc.

Important cross-reference note: Several foreign family members — EP 3,053,466 B1, CN 104,349,691 A — list NIKE INNOVATE C.V. as assignee. Nike Innovate C.V. is Nike's IP-holding subsidiary (One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR c/o address). This is a known, well-documented Nike intra-group IP housekeeping arrangement (e.g., Nike International Ltd → Nike Innovate C.V. transfers recorded globally, such as the Brazilian INPI filing dated 2014‑09‑30). Whether a corresponding U.S. assignment to Nike Innovate C.V. exists for the '065 patent is unclear from my searches — Google Patents still shows Nike Inc as the U.S. current assignee, whereas the foreign counterparts show Nike Innovate C.V. This is a potential documentation gap I could not close; it is not evidence of an NPE, since Nike Innovate C.V. is wholly a Nike subsidiary.

Because the Assignment Center record was not retrievable, I am reporting one confirmed recorded assignment (inventors → Nike, Inc., 2012‑08‑17) and no confirmed post-issuance assignments.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9314065
    2012 : Filed by Nike Inc 15 Jun 2012
         : Inventors assign to Nike Inc 17 Aug 2012
    2016 : Patent granted 19 Apr 2016
         : Continuation filed 15 Mar 2016
    2019 : Second continuation filed 12 Aug 2019
    2020 : D Mass case terminated 13 Jan 2020

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent has been held by Nike, Inc. (and its subsidiary/affiliate structure) from the inventor assignment on 2012‑08‑17 through today — there is no recorded post-issuance transfer and no NPE anywhere in the chain. Nike is a large operating manufacturer that ships the claimed cleated-footwear technology, and it asserted the '065 patent directly against a competitor (Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., 1:18‑cv‑10876‑LTS, D. Mass., filed 2018‑05‑03; the parallel PTAB challenge IPR2019‑01042 was denied institution). Every NPE-pattern signal is not present, with the sole "unclear" being the correspondent-of-record field and the possible Nike Innovate C.V. housekeeping question — both explainable by the fact that title never left the Nike enterprise.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent 9,314,065): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for US 9,314,065 B2: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9314065B2](/patent/US9314065B2)/en

Caveat: The one material gap is that my searches did not surface the reel/frame number or correspondent for the 2012‑08‑17 Nike assignment, nor did they conclusively resolve whether a U.S. recordation to Nike Innovate C.V. exists. I have marked those as unconfirmed rather than fabricate.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 9,314,065 and verify the specific references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,314,065 B2 (application 13/524,044)

Retrieval note up front. I could not pull the machine-readable "Patent Citations" / IDS front-page list for this specific number within this session. The Google Patents full text supplied for US9314065B2 contains a "Cited By (5)" block and a "Families Citing this family (40)" block, but no "Patent Citations" block — so the backward citation list on the face of the patent is not in hand, and my Justia/FPO/EPO searches did not surface a front-page "References Cited" table for 9,314,065 specifically (the reference tables those searches returned belong to other Nike patents — e.g., D846852, D840654, D844962, US 10,863,794 — which cite 9314065 forwards, not the reverse). Search budget expired before I could pull PTAB E2E or PatentCenter for the '065 file wrapper, which would give the authoritative IDS/892 listing.

What follows therefore distinguishes three tiers: (a) references documented as being of record because the Examiner applied them (established via the IPR record), (b) references incorporated by reference in the '065 specification, and (c) forward citations that are not prior art. I do not fabricate reel/frame or citation counts I could not verify.

---

1. Prior art of record (Examiner-applied references)

The IPR2019-01042 record is the anchor here: PUMA's petition was denied institution under § 325(d) precisely because both references had already been applied by the Examiner — twice — during prosecution. That confirms both are cited-of-record art.

Reconciling a contradiction with the earlier sections. The Litigation Summary in this file states the IPR ground was "Anderton (US 5,461,801) in view of U.S. 8,056,267 ('Auger')", while the petition-analysis page states "Auger (Application # 2009/0293315)." These are most likely the same document in its publication and grant forms (a pre-grant publication issuing as the corresponding patent), which would make the two descriptions consistent rather than contradictory. I could not verify the publication→grant correspondence for these two numbers in this session, so treat the identity as probable, not confirmed. If they are in fact two different Auger documents, then the Examiner applied two Auger-family references and the § 325(d) analysis would rest on a third reference as well.

---

2. Reference incorporated by reference in the '065 specification

Note: the sibling Composite Sole Structure application (US 2014/0338230) incorporates Auger et al., US 2008/0010863 (2008-01-17) — but that incorporation does not appear in the '065 text, so I do not attribute it to this patent.

---

3. § 102 (anticipation) assessment, claim by claim

Bottom line: no reference of record anticipates any of claims 1–12. Both references of record were applied only in combination under § 103, and every rejection was overcome (or, in the IPR, the challenge was never instituted).

Anderton (US 5,461,801) — claims 1 and 9:

• Discloses (per PUMA's own mapping): a base plate with forefoot/midfoot/heel regions; forefoot and lateral pads/cleats; a crisscross reinforcement comprising two intersecting diagonal arch ribs (→ the "first diagonal rib / second diagonal rib" elements); a lateral midfoot bar (→ the lateral midfoot bar element).
• Missing for claim 1: the medial midfoot bar (PUMA conceded this was "the key missing element"), the "third lateral edge … intersects with, and terminates at" geometry of the lateral midfoot bar at the third and fourth points, and the "third point is spaced from the lateral forefoot pad" / "fourth point is spaced from the first lateral heel pad" limitations.
• Missing for claim 9: the entire four-pad forefoot arrangement (first/second medial forefoot pads, first/second lateral forefoot pads), the medial and lateral forefoot bars, and the "extends independent of the lateral midfoot bar beyond the third/fourth point" limitations.
• Result: no § 102 anticipation of claim 1 or 9. Because dependent claims 2–8 all incorporate claim 1's elements, Anderton cannot anticipate them either. Its only proper use is as a § 103 primary reference, and that door was closed at the PTAB by § 325(d).

Auger (US 8,056,267 / US 2009/0293315) — all claims:

• Discloses: a cleated sole plate and a layered cleat construction (recess, core, softer outer layer).
• Missing: the entire pad–diagonal rib–midfoot bar architecture of claim 1, and the four-pad forefoot + forefoot bars + fifth/sixth point center studs of claim 9. It supplies no claim-1 or claim-9 element that Anderton lacks, except possibly the pad-to-stud-base area relationship relevant to claim 5.
• Result: no § 102 anticipation of any claim. § 103 auxiliary reference only.

US 2009/0235558 — all claims: discloses cleat-member features (apertures) that no granted claim recites. No § 102 exposure.

Claim-by-claim § 102 exposure table

Practical corollary. Claims 7–12 were never the subject of any petition (PUMA challenged only 1–6), so they are not merely "not anticipated" — they are entirely untested against the prior art at the Board. Any § 102 case against them must be built from art outside the prosecution record.

---

4. Forward citations — expressly NOT prior art

These appear under Google Patents' "Cited By (5)", but every one post-dates the 2012-06-15 priority date, so none can be § 102 art against the '065 patent:

The same logic disposes of the "Families Citing this family (40)" entries surfaced in search — e.g., US 8,973,290 (Nike, reinforcing shank) carries a 2012-07-30 priority, i.e. ~6 weeks after the '065 priority date, so it is not § 102 art either. Likewise, the same-family members (US 10,383,398; US 11,172,730; WO2013188618A1; EP2861091B1; EP3053465B1; EP3053466B1; CN104349691B; CN106418875B; JP5801959B2; JP6083767B2) share the 2012-06-15 priority date and cannot be prior art against the '065 patent.

---

5. What I could not verify (stated, not papered over)

1. The complete front-page "References Cited" list for 9,314,065 — including any foreign patent documents (JP/DE/EP/WO) and any non-patent literature the Examiner cited. Not retrieved.
2. Filing dates for Anderton (US 5,461,801) and Auger (US 8,056,267 / US 2009/0293315). Not retrieved; only the issue/publication dates are confirmed.
3. Whether US 2009/0293315 A1 and US 8,056,267 B2 are the same document (see the flagged discrepancy in § 1).
4. The identity of the Examiner-applied reference(s) that necessitated the "spaced from" amendment. The prosecution-history note in this file says those limitations were added to overcome prior art; the IPR record shows the Anderton+Auger combination was applied twice. But I could not read the actual 892s/office actions to confirm whether a third reference drove the amendment.

Next retrieval steps to close these gaps (all definitive):

• USPTO PatentCenter for application 13/524,044 → "Documents & Transactions" → the IDS/892 forms and all non-final/final office actions: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
• PTAB E2E / P-TACTS for IPR2019-01042, Paper 10 (the 2019-10-31 institution decision) and the petition exhibit list — the exhibit list enumerates the exact prior-art documents PUMA relied on and their publication data: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• Google Patents "Patent Citations" tab for US9314065B2 (the block that did not load in the supplied text): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9314065B2/en
• Espacenet / Global Dossier for the EP2861091B1 search report, which will list the EPO examiner's cited art for the same invention — useful only as a lead, since EP-cited art is not automatically US of-record art: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/

I'll research the prior art landscape for US 9,314,065, starting with the references cited on the patent's own face and the art the PTAB panel actually addressed.

Good — I've now confirmed the two references the Board actually addressed (Anderton and Auger) and their disclosures. Let me now look for the patent's own cited-art list and for additional prior art bearing on the specific structural limitations (midfoot bars, pad-and-stud clusters, X-reinforcement).

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,314,065 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This section builds on the earlier-generated summary, litigation, PTAB, and assignment sections and does not repeat their content. It uses the prior-art references surfaced on the patent's own face and in the IPR2019-01042 record: Anderton, U.S. 5,461,801 ("Cleated athletic shoe with crisscross arch reinforcement," Anderton, Graeme; issued 10/31/1995) and Auger, U.S. 8,056,267 ("Article of footwear with cleated sole assembly"; pre-grant publication US 2009/0293315 A1, published 12/03/2009), plus Auger et al., US 2009/0235558 A1 ("Cleat Member for Article of Footwear," published 09/24/2009), which the '065 specification expressly incorporates by reference.

Covering-law caveat. The '065 patent's effective filing date is 2012-06-15, i.e., before the AIA first-inventor-to-file provisions took effect (March 16, 2013). Pre-AIA § 103(a) therefore governs, and the pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) definitions of prior art apply. All three references above published more than one year before 2012-06-15 (1995, 2009, 2009) and are squarely § 102(b) printed publications, hence available as § 103 art. This is a favorable posture for a challenger — no Helsinn-type secret-prior-art complications, and no AIA § 102(a)(2) issue.

---

1. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

The claims and specification are directed to cleated athletic footwear (soccer/football cleat geometry, sole-plate reinforcement, multi-shot molding of studs and ribs). A reasonable POSITA definition for this record is:

A person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a related field, plus approximately 2–4 years of experience designing athletic footwear or sole assemblies; or, in the alternative, approximately 5–7 years of practical experience in cleated-footwear design without a technical degree.

That person would be familiar with: (a) the functional anatomy of the foot in sprinting, cutting, and backward movement; (b) the trade-off between sole-plate stiffness (arch/torsional support, stud-pressure distribution) and forefoot flexibility along the metatarsophalangeal joints; (c) the use of ribs, webs, frames and shanks as reinforcement on an outsole; and (d) the molding techniques (multi-shot injection, co-molding of cleats with a base plate) needed to make such geometry. Critically, this POSITA would read ribs and bridges that tie cleats together as load-path elements whose purpose is to distribute and moderate stud pressure and to add localized stiffness — which is precisely the theme of all three references.

---

2. The claimed subject matter that drives the § 103 analysis

Independent claim 1 is a combination claim. Reduced to its inventive core, it requires:

1. A base plate divided into forefoot/midfoot/heel with a longitudinal axis and medial/lateral (inner/outer), forward/rearward edges;
2. A structure comprising: a medial forefoot pad and a lateral forefoot pad (both forefoot region, near the midfoot portion); a medial heel pad and a first lateral heel pad;
3. A first diagonal rib from the medial forefoot pad to the first lateral heel pad (i.e., a medial-front → lateral-rear diagonal);
4. A second diagonal rib from the lateral forefoot pad to the medial heel pad (lateral-front → medial-rear diagonal) — the two ribs crossing in the arch/midfoot;
5. A medial midfoot bar and a lateral midfoot bar, both "substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis," respectively "proximate the medial edge" and "proximate the lateral edge";
6. Four studs, one on each of the four pads (medial forefoot, medial heel, lateral forefoot, first lateral heel);
7. The "spaced from" terminus limitations: the lateral midfoot bar's lateral edge intersects and terminates at a third point on the second diagonal rib (forward end) and at a fourth point on the first diagonal rib (rearward end), and those two points are spaced from the lateral forefoot pad and the first lateral heel pad, respectively.

Independent claim 9 is a differently-limited variant built on a four-pad forefoot (first/second medial forefoot pads and first/second lateral forefoot pads), medial and lateral forefoot bars connecting them, the same two crossing diagonal ribs and the two axial midfoot bars, plus the "independently of" limitation: a portion of each diagonal rib extends independently of the lateral midfoot bar beyond the bar's terminus toward the respective stud.

Dependents add: heel rib (cl. 2, 11); second lateral heel pad (cl. 3, 12); second lateral heel stud + second lateral forefoot stud (cl. 4); pad surface area larger than the stud base (cl. 5); ordering of the second and third points along the second diagonal rib (cl. 6); tapered pads joined at a point (cl. 7); center cleat at the pad junction (cl. 8, 10); and a second lateral heel stud sharing a base with the first lateral heel stud (cl. 12).

---

3. Combination 1 (the combination PUMA actually ran): Anderton + Auger '267

3.1 What Anderton teaches

Anderton is a cleated soccer/football/rugby shoe whose solicited advantage is "added rigidity to the sole and added support to the arch region … without excessively increasing the weight and bulk" (US 5,461,801, Background). Its disclosure maps onto claim 1 with surprising completeness:

Anderton is thus not merely analogous art — it is the same problem statement: reinforce the sole, distribute load between cleats, add arch support, without adding bulk. That gives a challenger a ready-made, reference-internal motivation for essentially every structural element of the '065 claims except the axially-oriented midfoot bars and the specific "spaced from"/"independently of" terminations.

3.2 What Auger '267 supplies

Auger '267 (published 12/03/2009, § 102(b) art) is a cleated sole assembly expressly designed for hard artificial-turf surfaces, where "greater impact forces on the feet" and "higher surface temperatures" are the problems. Its relevant teachings:

• Ribs tie cleats together: "one or more ridges or ribs 39 may extend along lower surface 34 of sole plate 30. Ribs 39 extend between a corresponding pair of cleats 32." Auger expressly places ribs between adjacent forefoot cleats and between forefoot and heel cleats.
• Medial and lateral axial ribs: "ribs 39 extend between the rearmost midfoot cleat 32F and the foremost rear cleat 32R on both lateral side 24 and medial side 22 of sole assembly 14." (The numerals 22/24 appear in a passage whose side-labels are internally inconsistent with the rest of the document — I note that literally and do not correct it — but the point stands either way: Auger discloses a pair of ribs, one on each side, running fore-aft between a midfoot/forefoot cleat and a heel cleat. That is the claimed pair of midfoot bars.)
• Axial orientation: the forefoot rib between the two secondary cleats 33S is expressly "substantially parallel to longitudinal axis L" — the claim's express orientation limitation.
• Pads supporting multiple studs: "base portion 41 supports forefoot cleats 32F on medial side … and extends inwardly beneath forefoot cleats 32R" — i.e., a discrete pad region serving as the base for more than one cleat. Under PUMA's proposed construction (recorded in the IPR petition analysis: "pad" = the base portion of each cleat; "stud" = the ground-engaging portion), base portion 41 is the claimed "pad."
• Taper/wide-base studs: Auger's cleats are cylindrical with a defined outer diameter and a recess, and its secondary cleats have a lower-surface diameter — geometry that yields a base wider than the ground-engaging tip, i.e., claim 5's "pad surface area larger than a base of the stud."
• Ribs as structure: "circulation plate 42 … can also provide structure to sole assembly 10, thereby enhancing support for the user's foot" — Auger repeatedly frames added sole-plate elements as support/stiffness elements.

3.3 Motivation to combine — the element the Board faulted PUMA for

The Board's stated reason for denying institution was not that the combination lacked merit but that PUMA failed to show Examiner error, in two specific respects: (i) PUMA showed only that a POSITA could implement the modification, not that it would have been obvious (the Board's "whether a skilled artisan would have known how to implement a modification does not address … whether the modification would have been obvious in the first place"); and (ii) PUMA never engaged Nike's prosecution rationale that the "spaced from" geometry necessitated the medial midfoot bar and produced "more symmetric reinforcement of the midfoot region" (PTAB Litigation Blog; Mondaq mirror).

A properly built § 103 case fixes both defects, and the fix is mostly supplied by the references themselves:

(a) Same field, same problem, same solution type (KSR rationales (A)-(B)). Anderton and Auger '267 are both cleated athletic shoes for the same sports, both address traction + stability + foot control + sole rigidity, and both expressly frame reinforcement ribs as the solution. That is the classic KSR "predictable use of prior art elements according to their known function" case.

(b) Articulated, reference-internal reason to add the axial midfoot bar to Anderton's X-rib. Anderton's own stated goal is to add rigidity to the sole and arch support "without excessively increasing the weight and bulk." Auger '267 discloses discrete fore-aft ribs connecting a midfoot-region cleat to a heel cleat on each side and expressly states its plate/rib elements "provide structure to sole assembly … thereby enhancing support." A POSITA seeking to stiffen Anderton's midfoot without thickening the pre-existing (and load-critical) X-ribs — the very constraint Anderton identifies — has a concrete reason to add a pair of light, axially-running ribs at the medial and lateral margins, which is exactly what the '065 specification itself says the midfoot bars do ("provide base plate 102 with torsional stiffness resisting twisting in midfoot region 109" and "moderate stud pressure"). The patent's asserted advantage is the references' asserted advantage.

(c) Neutralize the "symmetric reinforcement" rationale. Nike's allowance argument was that the claimed spacing produced a more symmetric midfoot reinforcement. But Auger '267 already discloses symmetric medial/lateral rib pairs ("on both lateral side 24 and medial side 22"). Symmetry therefore cannot be the source of patentable distinction over the combination: a POSITA adding Auger's ribs to Anderton would naturally mirror them side-to-side, and Auger teaches precisely that mirrored arrangement. This is the single most important gap in the earlier petition that a new challenger should close.

(d) The "spaced from" terminus limitation is arguably a geometric consequence, not a design choice. This is the crux of claim 1. Anderton's arch ribs necessarily terminate at the four cleats (they are defined as extending between cleats). Add a fore-aft bar "proximate the medial edge" that "ties into" both diagonal ribs, and the bar must meet each rib somewhere along that rib's length between its cleat endpoint and the central X-intersection. Unless the bar were placed exactly at a corner (which would defeat its midfoot-bar function), its junction points on the ribs are inherently spaced from the cleat/pad locations. In other words, given Anderton's corner-to-corner diagonal rib geometry plus an axial midfoot bar, the claimed "third point spaced from the lateral forefoot pad" and "fourth point spaced from the first lateral heel pad" follow as a matter of geometry. That is a materially stronger argument than PUMA's "aesthetic design choice" framing, and it directly answers the Board's objection by supplying a reason the modification would have been made rather than merely that it could be.

(e) Claim 9's "independently of" limitation (each diagonal rib continuing past the bar's terminus toward the stud) is the same geometry viewed from the other side: it simply means the bar is shorter than the rib. Any added cross-member that ties into a longer, pre-existing rib without replacing it produces a rib portion that extends "independently of" the bar. On Anderton's geometry this is unavoidable.

(f) Claim 12's shared stud base. Auger '267 states that "each pair of cleats 40 shares a single base 42," and its sister disclosure Auger '558 teaches "cleat member assemblies 22 … cleat members 20 are coupled together," with "a plurality of cleat members 20 may share a single mounting plate." That is a direct, express teaching of the claim 12 "second lateral heel stud sharing a base with the first lateral heel stud."

(g) Claim 8/10's center stud. Anderton claim 10 expressly recites "a forward cleat located at the intersection of said intersecting forward ribs" — this is the claimed "center cleat disposed on the [junction] point" almost verbatim in function, and Auger '267's triangular toe arrangement ("a rib 39 extends between the foremost secondary cleat 33S and each of the rearmost secondary cleats 33S") provides a second, independent teaching of a cleat at the apex where ribs converge.

(h) Claim 5 (pad > stud base). Once "pad" is construed as the cleat's base portion, this limitation is met by any tapered cleat with a base wider than its tip (as the '065 specification itself describes its own studs: "may taper from the base to a tip"). This limitation is functionally a description of a standard cleat and is the weakest of the set for patentability purposes — a point worth pressing in district court claim construction even where an IPR is procedurally barred.

(i) Claim 6 (point-ordering). A requirement that one junction point lie closer to the forefoot pad than another along the same rib is the paradigm of a "mere rearrangement" / "obvious to try" limitation under KSR; the references give no criticality to the ordering, and the specification ascribes no distinct technical effect to it.

(j) Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 11. A heel rib spanning the medial heel pad to the lateral heel pad cluster (cl. 2/11) is squarely taught by Anderton's heel ribs — e.g., "a third heel rib extending between said forwardmost rearward outer cleat and said rearwardmost rearward outer cleat" and the four-cleat rib network of Anderton cl. 8. A second lateral heel pad (cl. 3/12) finds support in Anderton's four rearward cleats (two per side) plus Auger's multi-cleat base portions 41. Tapering pads joined at a point (cl. 7) is taught by Auger '267's V-shaped triangular toe rib arrangement and by Auger '558's coupled cleat member assemblies. These are the strongest candidates for a § 103 rejection and the weakest for Nike to defend.

3.4 Is there a teaching away?

None that I can identify in the retrieved text of Anderton or Auger '267. Neither criticizes axial midfoot ribs, symmetric reinforcement, or short (non-pad-terminating) cross-members. Auger '267's concern with artificial-turf impact forces actually reinforces the motivation to distribute stud pressure via ribs — the '065 patent's own stated purpose ("structure 118 may moderate the pressure of studs").

3.5 Secondary considerations / objective evidence

The record I have contains no admissible secondary-considerations evidence for the '065 patent: no proven nexus between any claimed structural limitation and commercial success, no copying evidence, no licensing-due-to-the-invention evidence, and no unexpected-results data distinguishing the claimed geometry from the Anderton+Auger combination. The specification's asserted benefits ("cantilever effect that adds to the propulsion," "side-to-side flexibility," "torsional stiffness") are asserted qualitatively and are also described in the references' own terms (Anderton: arch support without bulk; Auger: support and structure). A challenger should also be prepared for Nike to point to the terminated Nike v. PUMA case (D. Mass. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS) — but that case ended in dismissal, produced no merits finding of validity, and any such evidence would need a demonstrated nexus to the claimed features.

---

4. Combination 2: Anderton + Auger '267 + Auger '558 (for claims 8–12)

Claim 9 was never challenged — the earlier PTAB section confirms PUMA attacked only claims 1–6, and secondary sources describing claim 1 as "the sole independent claim" conflict with the granted text's two independent claims (a discrepancy the earlier sections flagged and I will not paper over). For an attacker today, claim 9 is where the untested exposure lies, and the dependent set 10–12 adds features that are expressly disclosed in the prior art.

Add Auger '558 to the combination, which is particularly powerful because it is already incorporated by reference into the '065 specification (for the aperture features of the studs) and therefore cannot be dismissed as remote art. Its express teachings:

• "A bridge may be formed between two adjacent cleat members to provide additional stiffness." This is the single best sentence in the corpus for the motivation prong: it is an express, verbatim statement that bridging adjacent cleats stiffens the sole — exactly the '065 forefoot-bar and midfoot-bar concept.
• "The use of a cleat frame may improve stiffness and wear characteristics of the article of footwear and facilitate the manufacture and assembly of the cleat members." With cleat frame 16 "generally extend[ing] around the perimeter of sole 14" — the '065's perimeter-following bar arrangement (medial and lateral bars proximate the edges, joined to pads at the corners of the forefoot).
• "cleat members 20 are coupled together as cleat member assemblies 22 … to locally increase the stiffness of the article of footwear." → claim 9's four-pad forefoot with connecting bars, and claim 12's shared-base studs.
• Cleat-frame sides and discontinuities: "a first piece generally extend[ing] around the perimeter of sole 14 in the forefoot portion 13 and a second piece in the heel portion 11, but with the two pieces not connected to one another in the midfoot portion 15 at one or both of the lateral or medial sides." → this teaches bar arrangements that stop short of, and are separate from, adjacent structures — bearing directly on claim 9's "extends independently of the lateral midfoot bar" and claim 1's "terminates at / spaced from" geometry, and neutralizing any argument that a POSITA would necessarily merge all reinforcement into one continuous network.

---

5. Honest assessment: where the § 103 case is strong, and where it is exposed

Strong (for a challenger):

• Claims 5 and 6 are the most vulnerable — they recite a tapered-cleat base-to-tip relationship and a mere ordering of junction points along a rib, with no disclosed criticality. These read as classic KSR design-choice / obvious-to-try limitations.
• Claims 2, 3, 4, 11, 12 all add features (heel rib, extra heel pad, extra studs, shared stud base) that Anderton and Auger '267/'558 disclose or render obvious nearly verbatim.
• Claims 8 and 10 (center stud at the rib junction) are directly met by Anderton claim 10.
• Claim 9 has never been tested — not by the Examiner's twice-applied rejection (which PUMA's petition analysis describes as directed at claim 1), and not by the Board. Its additional limitations (forefoot bars; the "independently of" language) are strongly supported by Anderton's perimeter/forward rib network and Auger '558's "bridge" and discontinuous-frame teachings.

Exposed (for a challenger):

• Claim 1's "spaced from" limitations are the real battle line. The earlier sections establish that they were added during prosecution to overcome Anderton+Auger and were twice sustained by the Examiner. A § 103 case that treats them as an "aesthetic design choice" (PUMA's error) will likely fail again; a case that argues them as a geometric necessity arising from Anderton's corner-to-corner rib topology, and that affirmatively rebuts the "symmetric reinforcement" rationale using Auger '267's own mirrored rib pair, is the only version of the argument with a realistic chance.
• No Final Written Decision exists. Nothing about the '065 patent's validity has been adjudicated on the merits. Conversely, nothing about it has been invalidated either — an accused infringer cannot buy an easy win off IPR2019-01042 (see the earlier PTAB section on the absence of § 315(e) estoppel and of any FWD).
• § 325(d) is a procedural gate. Anderton and Auger '267 were before the Examiner and applied twice, and the denial is now Informative. Any future petition must lead with a materially different primary reference or a concrete, documented showing of Examiner error; re-running the identical combination is a poor bet. Note this is a discretionary hurdle only — it has no bearing on whether the combination is substantively obvious in district court.

What I could not verify (stated rather than assumed):

• I could not retrieve the '065 patent's own "References Cited" list from the Google Patents record in this session; my searches returned citation lists for other patents in the family (e.g., US 9,351,537, US 10,314,369, US 8,584,380) rather than the '065 face. Accordingly, I cannot rule out additional cited references that would strengthen (or complicate) the analysis. The three references relied on above are the ones actually surfaced in this session's results and in the IPR record.
• I could not retrieve the full text of U.S. 6,973,746 ("Soccer shoe having independently supported lateral and medial sides," Auger et al.) beyond its bibliographic listing; its title alone suggests it is highly relevant to the pad/stud separation concept, but I will not characterize its disclosure without the text.
• The specific prosecution-history rejections (the two Examiner rejections over Anderton+Auger) are referenced only through the IPR record and the PTAB Litigation Blog/Mondaq summaries; I did not pull the file wrapper myself. The exact claim language in force at the time of each rejection should be confirmed against PTAB E2E / USPTO PatentCenter before relying on it.
• Contradiction flagged for the record: the earlier litigation summary cites the IPR ground as "Anderton in view of U.S. 8,056,267 ('Auger')," while an adjacent bullet refers to "Auger (US 2009/0293315)," and the petition analysis cites "Auger (Application # 2009/0293315)." These are not contradictory: US 8,056,267 is the granted patent that published as US 2009/0293315 A1 (application 12/130,097, filed 05/30/2008). Both identifiers denote the same disclosure, and my mapping above treats them as one reference.