US 9730484

I'll verify the litigation/docket status with searches, then summarize using the authoritative patent text.

Key development found regarding validity. Let me verify the Federal Circuit docket and the certificate of cancellation.

US 9,730,484 B2 — Verification and Summary

Searches performed: Google Patents full-text (authoritative source provided), PTAB/PTAB-adjacent dockets (IPR2023-01460, IPR2025-00142), Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, and CAFC opinions-orders. I searched specifically for the literal number 9730484; results for other patents in the same family/litigation (8,266,749; 9,375,046; 9,730,484) are only noted where they bear on the '484 patent's status.

---

1. Bibliographic data

Lineage per the specification: this application is a division of 13/533,140 (issued as US 8,655,916), which was a continuation of 12/829,788 (US 8,215,132), which was a divisional of 11/558,499 (US 7,774,956), filed 2006-11-10.

Discrepancy note: Unified Patents' record lists priority 2006-11-09, application date 2013-11-21, grant date 2017-08-14, expiration 2028-09-10 — one-day offsets from the Google Patents/USPTO values above (likely time-zone normalization). I have not independently confirmed which set the USPTO face-of-patent reflects.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"Flat knitting allows production of textile structures (e.g., for use in footwear uppers) of a final desired shape such that textile cutting steps can be avoided. Flat knitted elements also can be formed directly in desired three dimensional shapes, which can help avoid the need to use additional support structures (e.g., in footwear construction). By selectively placing multiple different yarns and/or stitch patterns at multiple different locations in the overall structure during the knitting process, flat knitted products may have multiple different physical properties (e.g., different stretchability, different moisture management capabilities, etc.) at multiple different locations or zones within a single, unitary construction (e.g., different properties at different zones or locations within a single footwear structure). Additionally, flat knitting can be used to produce pockets, tunnels, or other layered structures in the final product."

---

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Article of footwear (apparatus).
An upper that contains a flat-knitted element made from yarn mechanically manipulated in a flat-knitting (not circular) process. The element's first layer has three parts:

• a central portion with a domed, three-dimensional structure positioned to go over the top of the foot;
• a first side portion knitted as one piece (unitary construction) with the central portion and extending off one side of it; and
• a second side portion likewise unitary with the central portion and extending off the opposite side.

The key limitation: the domed structure rises above the plane of both side portions when the flat-knitted element is in its flattened configuration — i.e., the dome is knitted in, not created by lasting, molding, or a separate support piece.

Claim 10 — Article of footwear (apparatus, two-layer version).
Same three-part geometry (central domed portion + two unitary side portions), but the element has a first layer and a second layer, where the second layer is flat-knitted with the first layer at opposite ends of the second layer to form an overlapped loop (e.g., a lace loop, channel, or pocket of unitary construction). This claim does not repeat the "extends above the plane" language of claim 1.

Claim 11 — Method of manufacture.
A method of making footwear by forming, during a flat-knitting process, an upper that includes the same flat-knitted element with the domed central portion and two unitary side portions extending from opposite sides, with the dome rising above the plane of the side portions when the element is flattened.

Dependent-claim coverage worth flagging: loops formed as a unitary second layer (2–4), void for the foot (5), exterior surface + void (6), differing knit structures between areas (7, 12–14), differing yarns between areas (8, 13–14), finished edges from knitting (9), assembling into footwear (15), side-edge seam under the foot along its longitudinal length (16), rear-edge seam up the heel (17), unitary loop (18), and lace through the loop (19).

---

4. Litigation and validity status — important

This is where the live record materially departs from the "Active" label on the Google Patents page.

• Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-00771 (filed ~Jan. 30, 2023). Nike asserted the '749, '046 and '484 patents. On summary judgment, the court granted lululemon's motion for summary judgment of no infringement of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484 (Order, Dkt. 154) — and the same order granted SJ of invalidity of claims 1 and 14 of the '749 patent and no infringement of the '046 patent. So the '484 patent was adjudicated not infringed in that case; the $355,450 verdict figure reported in secondary sources relates to the '749 patent, not the '484.
• IPR2023-01460 (lululemon usa inc. v. Nike, Inc., filed Sept. 27, 2023): the Board's Final Written Decision held all claims of the '484 patent unpatentable as obvious (reported date March 21, 2025).
• CAFC No. 2025-1801: Nike's appeal from that FWD. Per a USPTO PTAB filing dated Aug. 18, 2025, "the Federal Circuit granted Nike's motion to dismiss its appeal from the Board's FWD in IPR2023-01460. In that FWD, the Board found all claims of the '484 patent to be unpatentable. That decision is now final."
• Certificate of cancellation: Per the same PTAB record (petition 1556901), "The USPTO issued the certificate cancelling claims 1-19 of the challenged '484 patent."
• IPR2025-00142 (Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc., filed Nov. 4, 2024; instituted June 12, 2025) was terminated on Dec. 4, 2025 "Due to Issuance of Certificate Canceling All Challenged Claims."
• Other cases listed on the Google Patents record: California Central District Court 2:23-cv-09346; Massachusetts District Court 1:23-cv-12666.

CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket specific to the '484 patent. The only 2026 CAFC order surfaced is Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc., No. 2026-1275 (nonprecedential order, May 5, 2026), dismissing under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) — but that appeal arises from IPR2024-00460, a different PTAB proceeding (the "strip of fabric"/knitted-textile-element dispute, i.e., the '749 family), not IPR2023-01460.

---

5. Explicit uncertainties

• Conflicting status indicators. The Google Patents page shows legal status "Active, expires 2028-09-11," while PTAB/court records indicate all claims 1–19 were cancelled by certificate (approximately November 2025). Google Patents' status field is frequently machine-derived and lagging; I could not retrieve the certificate itself from an official USPTO source in these searches. I would treat the certificate of cancellation of claims 1–19 as the operative current status, with the Google Patents "Active" flag as stale — but flag this as a records discrepancy rather than a settled fact.
• The 2025-1801 details (dismissal on Aug. 18, 2025) come from a PTAB petition filing quoting the Federal Circuit's action, not from the CAFC docket page itself; I did not independently open the CAFC docket for 2025-1801.
• No 2026 CAFC docket for 9730484 was found — absence of a result is not proof that none exists; docket-specific searches on cafc.uscourts.gov were not directly retrievable here.
• I did not verify the certificate-of-cancellation date to the day; secondary records place it between dismissal of the appeal (Aug. 2025) and the IPR2025-00142 termination (Dec. 4, 2025), with one PTAB filing referencing it on Nov. 4, 2025.

I'll search for litigation involving this specific patent number.

Let me gather details on the PTAB proceedings and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me confirm the outcome of the '484 claims in the district court cases and the SDNY case status.

Bottom line

US Patent 9,730,484 ("the '484 patent," Article of Footwear Having a Flat Knit Upper Construction or Other Upper Construction, Nike, Inc.) has been the subject of three district court litigations, two PTAB inter partes reviews, and one Federal Circuit appeal. As of today the patent is effectively dead: the PTAB found all 19 claims unpatentable, and the USPTO issued a certificate cancelling claims 1–19. All district court claims on the '484 patent have been dismissed.

---

1. District court litigations

(a) Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc.

'484-specific posture:

• Nike asserted claim 1 of the '484 patent against lululemon's Chargefeel Mid and Chargefeel Mid 2.0 shoes.
• lululemon counterclaimed (April 14, 2023) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement (Count V) and invalidity (Count VI) of the '484 patent, relying on Hong et al., IJFTR 19(3) (Sept. 1994) in combination with U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0048413 (Sokolowski).
• lululemon moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of the '484 patent (Dkt. 156, filed July 29, 2024), arguing the Chargefeel Mids lack the claimed "domed, three-dimensional structure configured for extending over the top of the foot." The court had construed "flat-knitted element" and the parties agreed the dome must be formed during the flat-knitting process (D.I. 127 at 83:2-5).
• The court denied lululemon's motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 251, 2024), noting summary judgment and Daubert briefing were fully submitted.
• Outcome on '484: mooted by the PTAB. Following the March 21, 2025 Final Written Decision invalidating all claims, the '484 patent was withdrawn from the suit. The March 2025 jury verdict addressed only the '749 patent (infringed, $355,450 award) and the '046 patent (not infringed) — there was no jury finding on the '484 patent.
• Current status of the overall case: Post-trial, the court granted lululemon's Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of the '749 patent are invalid for obviousness, denying Nike's damages motions as moot (Opinion and Order, S.D.N.Y., 23-cv-771; mirrored at http://business.cch.com/ipld/Nikelululemonusa20260331040226.pdf). lululemon had announced an intent to appeal the adverse verdict.

(b) Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

'484-specific posture and outcome:

• Nike alleged infringement of at least claim 1 of the '484 patent. Skechers answered and counterclaimed on January 12, 2024, denying infringement and alleging invalidity.
• Skechers moved to stay pending IPR on November 19, 2024 (Dkt. 87); the court granted the stay on February 4, 2025 (Dkt. 97); the stay was lifted June 26, 2025 (Dkt. 99) with the court ordering Nike to dismiss with prejudice.
• Outcome: Joint Stipulation Dismissing Claims and Defenses Relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484, filed July 9, 2025 — Nike dismissed with prejudice its Fourth Claim for Relief ('484 infringement); Skechers dismissed without prejudice its related affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The rest of the case (the other asserted patents) remains pending.
• Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.[904555](/patent/904555)/gov.uscourts.cacd.904555.100.0.pdf

(c) Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.

'484-specific posture and outcome:

• Accused lines included Fresh Foam and FuelCell. Nike sought damages, a willfulness finding, and a permanent injunction.
• The case was stayed pending IPR over Nike's objection (stay sought only through August 9, 2025; the court found no undue prejudice — see D. Mass. opinion reported at https://masslawyersweekly.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2025/06/02-308-25.pdf).
• Outcome: "STIPULATION Filed Jointly Dismissing Claims and Defenses Relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484" filed August 20, 2025 (Dkt. entry on CourtListener docket 67981637).
• New Balance also filed its own IPR petitions in this campaign (institution decisions for the '484 and '749 patents were reported as due June 20, 2025). I could not confirm the specific IPR number or outcome for any New Balance-filed petition against the '484 patent from the available results — treat that item as unverified.

---

2. PTAB inter partes reviews

(a) IPR2023-01460 — lululemon usa inc. v. Nike, Inc.

Outcome: The Board held all 19 claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0193592 (Dua) in view of Hong et al. and/or Choi. Nike's U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0193592 is the patent owner's own earlier publication. Key prior art in the record: Lockwood (US 3,641,603), Hong (IJFTR 19(3), Sept. 1994), Voughlohn (US 2006/0053658), Hatfield (US 6,367,168), Norton (US 6,558,784), Spencer, Knitting Technology (3d ed. 2001). The Board adopted the parties' agreed construction that the "domed, three-dimensional structure" is formed during the flat-knitting process.

Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2023-01460

(b) IPR2025-00142 — Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

Outcome — "Procedural Termination," not a merits decision: Termination Due to Issuance of Certificate Canceling All Challenged Claims (35 U.S.C. § 318(b); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.80, 42.122(a)). Because the Office had issued an Inter Partes Review Certificate cancelling all claims of the '484 patent (US 9,730,484 K1, dated September 25, 2025) following the final determination in IPR2023-01460 and the termination of Nike's appeal, no viable claim remained for trial.

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00142 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00142

---

3. Federal Circuit appeal

In re Nike, Inc. / Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc., No. 2025-1801

Outcome: Nike filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on August 15, 2025; lululemon had already noticed it would not file an appellee brief or argue. The Federal Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on August 18, 2025, issuing the mandate, each party to bear its own costs. The Board's invalidity determination thereby became final.

Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1801 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/25-1801

---

4. Current status summary for the '484 patent

• All 19 claims cancelled. IPR certificate (US 9,730,484 K1) issued September 25, 2025; PTAB so noted in terminating IPR2025-00142 on December 4, 2025.
• The '484 patent is listed by Google Patents as "Active, expires 2028-09-11" (adjusted expiration) — but that status field predates/is inconsistent with the certificate cancelling all claims, which is the operative event.
• Every district court claim asserting the '484 patent has been dismissed (Skechers, July 9, 2025; New Balance, August 20, 2025; lululemon, mooted by the IPR).

---

Caveats and notes

• I searched for patent number 9730484 only; I did not fold in results for the sibling family members (7,774,956; 8,195,317; 8,215,132; 8,654,916), which have their own separate histories.
• Some secondary sources (particularly Chinese-language summaries of the Nike–lululemon verdict) give the jury verdict date as March 10, 2024; the English-language primary coverage and the verdict form cite March 2025 (some report March 7, 2025 as the verdict date and March 10, 2025 as its entry). I have used March 2025.
• I could not independently verify with high confidence: (i) the docket number or disposition of any New Balance-filed IPR petition specifically targeting the '484 patent; and (ii) the precise docket entry resolving the '484 infringement claim and the '484 counterclaims in the S.D.N.Y. action (as distinct from its being mooted by the IPR). If you need those nailed down, the S.D.N.Y. docket 1:23-cv-00771 and the D. Mass. docket 1:23-cv-12666 on PACER/CourtListener would be the authoritative sources.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings referenced in the patent's litigation block, plus the associated appeals.

Strong signal already. Let me pin down the FWD grounds, art, and check for any other petitions on the '484 patent.

Let me nail down the FWD's specific grounds/art and confirm the appellate disposition.

Proceedings overview

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO ODP: no AIA trial proceedings) is stale and wrong for this patent. The patent's own Google Patents litigation record and the public PTAB record show two inter partes reviews: IPR2023-01460 (lululemon) — all claims invalidated, FWD issued; and IPR2025-00142 (Skechers) — instituted, then terminated as moot. Nike's appeal was dismissed, the Office issued a certificate cancelling claims 1–19, and the '484 patent is now a dead letter (1 proceeding with claims invalidated / 1 proceeding terminated without a merits verdict / 0 claims sustained / 0 active / 0 settled / 0 institution denials).

Bottom-line defensive posture: this is the best possible posture for a defendant. Every claim of US 9,730,484 has been cancelled — not narrowed, cancelled — and the cancellation is final (appeal dismissed 2025-08-18; certificate issued 2025-09-25). If a demand letter, complaint, or ITC filing cites the '484 patent, the assertion is frivolous on its face; the only live question is whether the asserting party can be sanctioned or hit with fees for pressing it.

---

IPR2023-01460 — lululemon usa inc. et al. v. Nike, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-09-27
• Status: "Final Written Decision" (per patent record and PTAB docket); proceeding terminated 2025-03-21 by issuance of the FWD.
• Judge panel: Carl M. DeFranco (author of the Final Written Decision), Josiah C. Cocks, George R. Hoskins. (One aggregator also lists Jarrett B. Perlow and Stephen Belisle in the case history — likely institution/expanded-panel participation; the FWD panel per the Patexia docket is DeFranco/Cocks/Hoskins.)
• Petition grounds: claims 1–19 challenged, all under 35 U.S.C. § 103. lululemon advanced four grounds built on a primary reference identified in the record as "Dua" (a Dua et al. patent application publication) in combination with Hong ("The development of 3D shaped knitted fabrics for technical purposes on a flat knitting machine," IJFTR 19(3), Sept. 1994), Lockwood, and Voughlohn (US 2006/0053658). Per the POR table of contents: Ground 3 = Dua + Hong + Lockwood against claims 1–19; Ground 4 = Dua + Hong + Lockwood + Voughlohn against claims 2–4, 18, 19. The exhibit list also includes Hatfield and Norton (US 6,558,784). Caveat: I could not retrieve the FWD PDF text itself, so I cannot state which ground carried which claim — see "Recommended next steps."
• Institution decision: instituted 2024-03-26 (IPR2023-01460, Paper 11 equivalent). The Board adopted the parties' agreed construction that the "domed, three-dimensional structure" of the flat-knitted element (claims 1, 10, 11) is one formed "during the flat-knitting process," and held no other terms required construction.
• Final Written Decision (2025-03-21): All of claims 1–19 held unpatentable as obvious under § 103. Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 fell, and every dependent claim with them — including the loop/channel claims 2, 3, 4, 18, 19, the stitch- and yarn-variation claims 7 and 8, the "finished edges" claim 9, and the method claims 11–19. Trading coverage of the decision (Mondaq/IP China reporting) describes a unanimous panel finding all 19 claims invalid as obvious over three prior-art references. No claim was sustained. Not confirmed from public sources: whether Nike filed a motion to amend, and whether any request for Director Review was filed.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding went to a merits FWD and was terminated by that decision.
• Appeal: Yes — Federal Circuit No. 2025-1801 (Nike, Inc., appellant). Nike moved to dismiss its own appeal, and the Federal Circuit granted the motion on 2025-08-18, making the FWD final and non-appealable. Docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/25-1801
• Certificate: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), the Office issued and published US 9,730,484 K1, dated 2025-09-25, cancelling claims 1–19.
• Defensive value: This is the kill shot. Claims 1–19 are cancelled. Any infringement theory built on claim 1 (the domed central portion / unitarily knitted side portions) or on method claim 11 is not merely weak — it is an assertion of a claim that no longer exists, which courts treat as baseless.

---

IPR2025-00142 — Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review

• Filed: 2024-11-04

• Status: "Procedural Termination" (per the patent record) — plain English: instituted, then shut down because the patent had no claims left to try. Terminated 2025-12-04.

• Judge panel: Ken B. Barrett, Carl M. DeFranco, George R. Hoskins (from the face of the termination order).

• Petition grounds: claims 1, 5–9, and 11–17 challenged on § 103 obviousness grounds (Skechers' own prior-art combination; the record here also shows reliance on Hong, Norton, and Voughlohn-type knitting references).

• Institution decision: instituted 2025-06-12 on all claims as challenged in the petition (i.e., claims 1, 5–9, 11–17). Because the petition was filed while IPR2023-01460 was pending, institution was effectively a formality on a patent about to be cancelled.

• Final Written Decision: None. No merits verdict was ever reached — the Board terminated before the FWD deadline.

• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2025-12-04 by order "Due to Issuance of Certificate Canceling All Challenged Claims." Verbatim from the order:

  "Subsequent to our institution, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), the Office issued and published an Inter Partes Review Certificate cancelling all claims of the '484 patent because (1) they were finally determined to be unpatentable in an earlier inter partes review proceeding, IPR2023-01460, and (2) Nike's subsequent appeal has terminated. See Ex. 3002 (US 9,730,484 K1, dated Sep. 25, 2025). With the Office's cancellation of claims 1-19 of the '484 patent, there no longer remains a viable patent claim for trial. As such, we deem it appropriate to terminate this proceeding."

  Order: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556901](/patent/1556901)/download-documents?artifactId=bpV0lKRZDuQZ2_WiS2m7XWY8nQeJzPAd6nqChb8vJiDwFeDKRVuuKv8

• Appeal: None (no FWD to appeal).

• Defensive value: Confirms, from the Board itself, that there is "no longer ... a viable patent claim for trial" in the '484 patent. That sentence is quotable in a motion to dismiss, a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter, or a fee motion.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. There are no surviving claims of US 9,730,484.

• CANCELLED: claims 1–19 (all of them) — by FWD in IPR2023-01460 (2025-03-21), finalized by dismissal of Nike's appeal (2025-08-18), and effected by the § 318(b) certificate US 9,730,484 K1 (2025-09-25).
• SUSTAINED: none.
• UNTESTED: none. Skechers' narrower subset (claims 1, 5–9, 11–17) was mooted before any merits decision.

Notably, Nike did not defend the asset. It moved to dismiss its own Federal Circuit appeal (2025-08-18) and, two days later (2025-08-20), stipulated to dismiss its claims and defenses relating to the '484 patent in Nike v. New Balance (D. Mass. 1:23-cv-12666) — which is consistent with Nike writing off the '484 patent rather than litigating its cancellation. (Inference, clearly labeled: the dismissal papers are public; Nike's motive is not stated.) In Nike v. lululemon (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-00771), the court had already granted lululemon summary judgment of no infringement of claim 1 of the '484 patent — a ruling now academic given claim 1's cancellation. See: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.[593182](/patent/593182)/gov.uscourts.nysd.593182.154.1.pdf and https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67981637/108/nike-inc-v-new-balance-athletics-inc/authorities/

Estoppel landscape. With every claim cancelled, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is largely beside the point for the '484 patent — there is no claim left to assert, so there is no ground left to estop anyone from raising. Two practical points nonetheless matter to neighboring disputes:

• lululemon (IPR2023-01460) and Skechers (IPR2025-00142) are petitioners and are estopped as to grounds raised or reasonably raisable on the '484 patent. Skechers, however, obtained no merits ruling, so its estoppel footprint is narrow in practice; the patent is dead regardless.
• New Balance is a different patent problem. In the D. Mass. stay briefing, Nike argued expressly that New Balance "is not a party to those petitions … will not be bound by IPR estoppel," and New Balance filed only IPR2025-00020 on the '932 patent. So a defendant in New Balance's position gets no estoppel benefit from the '484 result — but it also doesn't need one: the '484 patent is cancelled, so Nike cannot assert it at all. If you are being asserted against on the sibling Flyknit patents (e.g., '749, '932, '562, '636, '511, '350, '758, '105), the '484 cancellation buys you nothing but a template — the art and the "during the flat-knitting process" construction that worked here are reusable material.

Pattern signals.

• Two different commercial rivals filed on the '484 patent — lululemon (2023-09-27) and Skechers (2024-11-04) — i.e., the public-company defendants, not a defensive aggregator. Unified Patents appears only as a data source in the Google Patents litigation links; there is no Unified Patents-filed IPR on this patent.
• The patent owner did not pursue PTAB appeals aggressively — Nike appealed the '484 FWD but voluntarily dismissed; across the family, litigation posture is mixed (jury found infringement of the '749 patent, ~$355,450 / $1.20 per unit; those damages are now under collateral attack on the '749 side).
• The reading of the record that mattered: the Board construed "domed, three-dimensional structure" as requiring formation during the flat-knitting process — the same constructional hook that governs the sibling knit-to-shape patents. That construction is why the Dua/Hong/Lockwood/Voughlohn combinations landed.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull and cite the actual FWD. I could not retrieve the IPR2023-01460 Final Written Decision PDF in this session, so I have not verified ground-by-ground claim mapping or the exact quotes. Retrieve it from PTAB E2E (https://e2e.uspto.gov/ → IPR2023-01460, Paper 29 area; also indexed at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-01460/doc/29) and confirm (a) which of Grounds 1–4 carried claims 1, 10, and 11, (b) the real identity of the "Dua" reference (exhibit number and publication number), and (c) whether any motion to amend or Director Review request was filed. Everything above about grounds is drawn from the Patent Owner's Response and exhibit list, not the FWD text.
2. Quote the disposition in any Rule 11 / § 285 posture. The two quotable artifacts are the US 9,730,484 K1 certificate (2025-09-25), cancelling claims 1–19, and the Board's own sentence in the IPR2025-00142 termination order that "there no longer remains a viable patent claim for trial." Certificates and the termination order are linked from https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1556901/.
3. No trial-stage milestones to track — there are no active proceedings. IPR2025-00142 was instituted on 2025-06-12 and would have faced a statutory FWD deadline of 2026-06-12; it terminated 2025-12-04 and never reached a hearing. IPR2023-01460 is closed and unappealable as of 2025-08-18. The only forward-looking watch item is the Federal Circuit appeal in the sibling '749 dispute and the continued D. Mass. stay in Nike v. New Balance — relevant to the family, not to the '484 patent.
4. Treat the ODP "no proceedings" flag as a data gap, not a fact. It contradicts the patent's own litigation record and the two PTAB dockets. Do not represent to a court or a client that "no IPR has ever been filed on the '484 patent" — that statement is false and easily disproved. The correct statement is: two IPRs were filed; all claims were cancelled; one proceeding was terminated as moot.

US 9,730,484 B2 — Assignment / Chain-of-Title Reconstruction

Patent: "Article of Footwear Having a Flat Knit Upper Construction or Other Upper Construction"
App. No. 14/087,169 (filed 2013-11-22; a division of 13/533,140 → continuation of 12/829,788 → division of 11/558,499, filed 2006-11-10)
Grant: 2017-08-15 | Assignee of record: Nike, Inc., One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No unusual departure pattern is visible. There is no evidence in the sources reviewed that either inventor left Nike within 12 months of the 2006-11-10 priority filing, and no evidence of a subsequent portfolio transfer that a departure would normally precede. I could not verify current employment status of either inventor; treat that as unverified, not as a finding.
• This inventor pair is a repeat pair across the same Nike knit-upper family (Dua + Thomas also named on the siblings US 8,266,749, US 8,305,514-family '705, and US 8,221,530) — this is a prosecutorial "continuation cluster," not an assignment red flag.

---

Original assignee

Nike, Inc. (Oregon corporation; footwear/apparel). Nike is the assignee named on the face of the issued patent and remains the current assignee per Google Patents (Original Assignee = Nike Inc; Current Assignee = Nike Inc).

• Product embodying the claims: Yes, directly. This family covers flat-knitted shoe uppers produced to final shape in a flat-knitting process; Nike commercialized it as the Flyknit upper line. Nike's own appellate briefing describes the sibling '011 patent as protecting "Nike's new shoe upper, which Nike markets under its FLYKNIT trade name."
• Primary line of business: Athletic footwear, apparel and equipment; publicly traded (NYSE: NKE).
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, receivership, or Chapter 7/11 proceeding is associated with this patent or assignee. Nike remains the party captioned as Patent Owner ("NIKE, INC., Patent Owner") in both IPRs against this patent, which confirms title never left Nike.
• Important status caveat (asset value, not ownership): the patent's legal status is still shown as "Active, expires 2028-09-11" by Google Patents, but the PTAB in IPR2023-01460 issued a Final Written Decision on 2025-03-21 holding all 19 claims (1–19) unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and IPR2025-00142 was terminated on 2025-12-04 "Due to Issuance of Certificate Canceling All Challenged Claims." A certificate cancelling all claims means there is effectively nothing left to license or assign. The "Active" label appears to be an un-updated status field.

---

Assignment timeline

Finding, stated plainly: I found no recorded assignment moving title away from Nike, Inc. at any point. The Google Patents legal-events record for US 9,730,484 contains only priority, filing, publication, grant, and maintenance-status events — no conveyance entries — and the USPTO/PTAB captions throughout 2023–2025 name Nike, Inc. (not Nike Innovate C.V., and not any LLC) as patent owner. This is consistent with the single-chain pattern of an operating company that assigned in from its employees at filing and never sold the asset.

Verification limitation — stated explicitly rather than papered over: I was unable to retrieve the Assignment Center abstract (reel/frame numbers, execution dates, correspondent of record) for this patent from the sources reachable in this session; that data sits behind the USPTO Assignment Center search interface. I am therefore not supplying a reel/frame for the inventor-to-Nike conveyance — inventing a plausible-looking reel number would be worse than reporting the gap. The one conveyance that must exist on the file is recorded below with the reel/frame field marked unverified. Verify it directly at:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9730484" or "14/087,169")
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (same underlying records)

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9730484
    2006 : Priority application filed
         : NIKE Inc named as assignee
    2013 : Divisional application filed
    2017 : Patent issues to NIKE Inc
    2023 : Nike sues lululemon
         : Suits against Skechers and New Balance
    2024 : lululemon files IPR2023-01460
         : Skechers files IPR2025-00142
    2025 : PTAB cancels all 19 claims
         : Skechers IPR terminated as moot

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No assignment to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the record. Current assignee is Nike, Inc., an operating footwear manufacturer at One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR — a corporate headquarters address, not a registered-agent service address. There is no single-purpose LLC in this chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
The assignee (Nike, Inc.) matches no entry on any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). The parties adverse to this patent — lululemon usa inc. (IPR2023-01460, filed 2023-09-27) and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (IPR2025-00142, filed 2024-11-04) — are operating competitors and IPR petitioners, not NPEs. Note a common miscue: the Google Patents page lists these two IPRs under Unified Patents' portal links; that is Unified's litigation database, not Unified Patents as petitioner. The named petitioners are the competitors.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT APPLICABLE.
Because no assignment abstract was retrievable, I have no recorded correspondent (attorney/firm) names to test for recurrence. Do not read this as "clean" — it is an evidence gap. For completeness, the recorded correspondent on the related Nike pat

I'll search for the specific prior-art citations on US 9,730,484, including the IPR2023-01460 record, then analyze each reference.

Let me find the specific prior-art citations listed on the patent's face and the IPR2023-01460 grounds.

US 9,730,484 B2 — Prior-Art Citation Analysis

Search target: the literal number 9730484 (US 9,730,484 B2, application 14/087,169). I did not return or rely on look‑alike numbers (8,266,749; 9,375,046; 9,730,484's own family members 7,774,956 / 8,195,237 / 8,215,132 / 8,655,916) except where the record expressly links them to '484 as family or co‑asserted patents — which I flag as such.

Sources actually reached: Google Patents full text (the authoritative text supplied to me), the USPTO PTAB PTACTS petition records (IPR2023‑01460 exhibits and Patent Owner Response), Unified Patents' patent and litigation portal, and the Patexia IPR docket summary. I could not directly retrieve a USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search "References Cited" front page, and I could retrieve only the first ~40 entries of Unified Patents' 184‑item "Patent Art" list — so the citation inventory below is complete for the sources I reached, but I cannot certify it as the complete face‑of‑patent list.

---

1. Important framing: the record does not contain a §102 anticipation

Before the reference-by-reference analysis, one controlling point:

• Every claim of the '484 patent was held unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre‑AIA) in IPR2023‑01460, FWD dated March 21, 2025, and the claims were later cancelled. No reference was found to anticipate any claim under § 102.
• This is legally consistent with the claim structure: independent claims 1, 10, and 11 all require a flat-knitted element with a domed, three-dimensional central portion; the Board adopted the parties' agreed construction that this dome is formed "during the flat-knitting process." Every dependent claim (2–9, 12–19) incorporates those limitations by reference, so no dependent claim can be anticipated unless the independent-claim limitations are also met in a single reference. No single reference on this record does that.
• Accordingly, the proper answer to "which claims does reference X anticipate under § 102" is, for essentially every cited reference: none as issued; the references functioned as §103 combinable art. I identify below the few references with genuine §102 character and the specific limitations they map to.

Note on the governing statute: claimed priority runs to 2006‑11‑10, and no claim adds new matter, so pre‑AIA §§ 102/103 apply. Art must predate 2006‑11‑10 to be § 102(a)/(e)/(b) art.

Cross-reference / discrepancy: the previously generated section states the certificate cancelled claims 1–19, with the Google Patents "Active / expires 2028‑09‑11" flag treated as stale. The searches above are consistent with that (Patexia: "Claims Invalidated: 1–19"; appeal 2025‑1801). One minor inconsistency to flag: the task header gives today's date as April 26, 2026, while my operating context gives 2026‑09‑30; this does not affect the prior-art analysis, which turns on dates in 1972–2006.

---

2. Bucket A — Prior art actually applied against '484 in IPR2023‑01460

Exhibit numbers are from lululemon's exhibit list in IPR2023‑01460 (Ex. 1003–1011), per the PTACTS/Exparte records.

Reference detail and §102 exposure

Lockwood — U.S. Pat. No. 3,641,603

• Description: knitting/knotting disclosure relied on by lululemon as the primary reference for claims 1 and 5–9 (Ground 1: Lockwood + Dua; Ground 2: Lockwood + Dua + Norton).
• Grounds outcome: Lockwood's three-dimensional form is produced after knitting (e.g., by molding/forming). Given the Board's construction that the dome must be formed during flat knitting, lululemon's own petition conceded the point and the Board held Grounds 1–2 could not succeed (Institution Decision at 11).
• §102 exposure: None. Lockwood cannot anticipate claims 1/10/11 (no domed 3D structure knitted in), and therefore cannot anticipate any dependent claim.

Dua — U.S. 2005/0193592 (Nike; same inventor lineage as '484)

• Description: knitted textile elements for a footwear upper, edges joined to define a foot void, unitary areas with different textures/stitches/yarns; described in the '484 specification itself as disclosing circular-knitting techniques (incorporated by reference). Used by lululemon as the primary reference in Ground 3 (Dua + Hong + Lockwood, claims 1–19) and Ground 4 (adding Voughlohn, claims 2–4, 18, 19).
• §102 exposure: Only as a printed publication. Because it is by the same inventive entity, it is not §102(a)/(e) "by others" art, but publication 2005‑09‑08 makes it a §102(b) statutory-bar reference regardless of common inventorship. It squarely maps onto dependent-type limitations — claims 5 (void), 6 (exterior + void), 7–8 / 12–14 (differing stitch/yarn areas), 9 (knit-to-shape edges) — but it does not disclose the domed three-dimensional central portion, so it cannot anticipate claims 1, 10, or 11, nor any claim that incorporates them.

Hong (1994 journal article)

• Description: techniques for knitting three-dimensional shaped fabrics on a flat knitting machine by transforming a 3D form into a 2D pattern and seaming the pattern edges; working examples include a "knee" form. Nike argued Hong does not knit footwear and does not produce a domed 3D structure during knitting, and that a 2006 artisan would not have expected success.
• §102 exposure: None for any claim as issued (no footwear upper, and the 3D shape is achieved by assembling a 2D pattern, not by knitting a dome above the plane of side portions). This is the reference closest to the "three-dimensional knitting" concept, and the best candidate for a §102 challenge only if the claim's "formed during flat knitting" construction were eliminated.

Voughlohn — U.S. 2006/0053658

• Description: lace-based footwear fastening; "lace-receivers" that may be hooks, rings, or a "fabric ring" attached to or integrated into footwear by rivets or thread.
• §102 exposure: None. Voughlohn never discloses a knitted upper, a knitted loop, or an overlapped loop knitted unitarily with a first layer; it was used only for claims 2–4, 18, and 19 (loops / lace through loop) in Ground 4.

Norton (likely U.S. 6,558,784)

• Description: multi-layer composite footwear upper (two plastic layers + a middle fabric layer) formed as a planar sheet, heated and compression molded into 3D upper geometry. The record shows the Examiner considered Norton during prosecution of '484 (IDS dated 3/13/2014).
• §102 exposure: None. Molding a flat composite into 3D geometry is the antithesis of "domed structure formed during flat knitting." No claim reads on it.

---

3. Bucket B — References expressly discussed in the '484 specification

These are the "patent citations" written into the patent's own Background; all are §102(b)-class art, and all were cited as background/durability/stretch solutions, not as anticipatory knits.

---

4. Bucket C — Examiner-cited / citation-list art (partial inventory)

Unified Patents lists 184 "Patent Art" items for '484. I retrieved only the first portion. Critically, that list mixes genuine prior art with later, non-prior-art documents (e.g., US 2014/0150292; EP 2805638, 2012; TW M498500, 2013) and with family members that are not prior art at all (US 7,774,956; US 8,215,132 — same priority date 2006‑11‑09/10). Do not treat the 184 count as "184 prior-art references."

Pre‑2006 items visible in the list that are technically relevant to the knit/upper concepts:

§102 conclusion for Bucket C: none of the retrieved examiner citations discloses, in a single reference, a flat-knitted element with a domed central portion extending above the plane of two unitary side portions, nor a second layer flat-knitted with the first at opposite ends to form an overlapped loop. Therefore no claim of '484 is anticipated by any retrieved citation.

---

5. Related-proceeding art worth noting (not citations of '484)

These were applied against Nike's sibling patents, not against '484, but they are the substantive art most likely to be reused against the '484 claims if a §102/§103 challenge were re-run:

• U.S. Pat. No. 5,345,638 (Nishida) — shoe-upper shapes cut from a knitted web (the §103 linchpin in Nike v. Adidas, IPR2013‑00067 → CAFC 2021‑1903).
• U.S. Pat. No. 2,178,941 (Schuessler I, "Knitted helmet") and U.S. Pat. No. 2,150,730 (Schuessler II, "Knitting machine") — knitting an article to shape with finished edges, no cutting.
• U.S. Pat. No. 2,047,724 (Zuckerman), Spencer, Knitting Technology — used in IPR2024‑00460 (the "strip of fabric"/knit-to-shape dispute over the '749 patent).
• Any of these could be combined against '484's claim 9 ("defined shape having finished edges during the flat knitting process"), which is the limitation the Federal Circuit read narrowly in the knit-to-cut dispute.

---

6. Bottom line

1. No single reference on the '484 citation record anticipates any of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The claims were invalidated as obvious under § 103, not anticipated.
2. The references with the most §102-style relevance are: Dua‑592 (U.S. 2005/0193592, §102(b)) for the void / differing-stitch / differing-yarn / knit-to-shape dependent claim subject matter; US 1,888,172 and US 2,178,941 / 2,150,730 for knit-to-shape finished edges (claim 9-type subject matter); and Hong (1994) for three-dimensional knitted fabrics on a flat knitting machine. None discloses the "domed, three-dimensional structure … extending above the plane of the first and second side portions" as construed (formed during flat knitting), so none reaches claims 1, 10, or 11.
3. The dispositive combination was a three-reference §103 combination (apparently Dua + Hong + Lockwood, with Voughlohn added for claims 2–4, 18, 19), producing a Final Written Decision of unpatentability of all 19 claims.

7. Verification gaps I will not paper over

• I did not see a USPTO-hosted "References Cited" front page for 9,730,484; the citation inventory is compiled from the specification text plus a partial Unified Patents "Patent Art" list. Bucket C is incomplete.
• Lockwood's exact title/issue date, and the patent number behind "Norton," are unverified; the Norton→U.S. 6,558,784 link is my inference from the ADC Composites title and dates.
• I did not read the IPR2023‑01460 FWD itself, so the exact ground-by-ground disposition (which ground carried which claim) is inferred from the petition/POR/exhibit records and a secondary summary stating three references were relied on. No 2026 activity specific to IPR2023‑01460 or CAFC 2025‑1801 surfaced; absence of a result is not proof of absence.

I'll verify the key prior-art references and the IPR2023-01460 obviousness findings before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me dig into the specific prior-art references the Board relied on and obtain the FWD's ground-by-ground holdings.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date note / records flag: This task specifies an analysis date of April 26, 2026, while the environment header for this session reads 2026-09-30. The undersigned is proceeding on the task-supplied date (April 26, 2026). This does not change the substance below, but the docket posture described in the previously-generated summary (Federal Circuit dismissal Aug. 2025; certificate of cancellation of claims 1–19; IPR2025-00142 terminated Dec. 4, 2025) should be re-verified against the live register if a date-sensitive opinion is needed. I flag once more the internal contradiction already identified: Google Patents shows "Active," while PTAB/court records show all claims cancelled. For § 103 purposes below I treat the claims as issued and presumptively valid at the time of examination, and then note the outcome.

---

1. Governing framework and the critical date

• Statute: Because the '484 patent's earliest effective filing date is November 10, 2006 (chain: 11/558,499 → 12/829,788 → 13/533,140 → 14/087,169), the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs. (A single foreign/related record — WO 2008063385 — is indexed at a 2006-11-09 priority, a one-day offset already noted in the earlier summary; either date is November 2006 and does not change the prior-art set.)
• Test: Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as elaborated by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): scope/content of the prior art; differences between the claims and the art; level of ordinary skill; and objective indicia.
• Claim construction anchor (critical): In IPR2023-01460, the Board adopted the parties' agreed construction that the "domed, three-dimensional structure" of the "flat-knitted element" (claims 1, 10, 11) is formed "during the flat-knitting process." (Institution Decision at 6, as recited in the Patent Owner's Response.) This is the single most important limitation, and it is the limitation around which the successful obviousness case was built. Any § 103 analysis that treats the dome as produced by lasting, molding, or a separate support structure misses the claim.
• POSITA: A designer/developer of athletic footwear and knit textile components with roughly 2–4 years of practical experience in footwear design/development, plus familiarity with weft/warp knitting machinery and knit constructions (the level accepted in the parallel Nike/Adidas and Nike/Lyons litigations). The '484 specification's own tutorial content on yarns, interlooping, and flat vs. circular knitting confirms this is the relevant skill set.

---

2. What each independent claim requires (limitation map)

Dependents add: unitary loops (2–4, 18), foot void (5), exterior surface + void (6), differing knit structure (7, 12) / differing yarn (8, 13) / both (14), knit-to-shape finished edges (9), assembly (15), underfoot longitudinal seam (16), heel seam (17), lace through a loop (19).

Analytical consequence: claim 1 is essentially a three-part knit-to-shape footwear upper with a knitted-in dome and unitary side flaps. Every other limitation is a known knitting or footwear-assembly expedient. The invalidity battleground is therefore narrow: (a) does the art teach a domed 3D knit formed during flat knitting, and (b) does the art teach flat-knit double-layer loops/channels.

---

3. The prior-art set actually deployed — Grounds 1–4 of IPR2023-01460

The successful challenge (lululemon usa inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2023-01460) was mounted in four grounds, whose reference combinations are recoverable from the Patent Owner's Response (docketed as Exhibit 1038 in the related Skechers proceeding):

The Board's Final Written Decision held all of claims 1–19 unpatentable as obvious, and the certificate of cancellation issued, with Nike's Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2025-1801) dismissed. This is a decided, final administrative determination of obviousness on this record — not a prediction. What follows explains why those combinations work, and then constructs additional/additional-styled combinations drawn from the '484 page's own prior-art face.

---

4. The core combination — Dua ('592) + Hong + Lockwood (Ground 3)

This is the cleanest ground and covers every claim 1–19.

4.1 Dua — U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0193592 A1 (issued as US 7,347,011)

This reference sits directly in the '484 record — it is the published version of the same Nike "textile upper" family, cited on the face of the '484's own family (it appears both in the specification's discussion of circular-knitting techniques, incorporated by reference, and in the "Families Citing this Family" list as US 7,347,011). It is § 102(b) art to the 2006 priority date (published Sept. 8, 2005).

Dua '592 discloses, essentially verbatim, the following '484 limitations:

• An article of footwear with an upper incorporating a knitted textile element and a sole structure secured to the upper.
• Unitary (seamless) knit construction — "unitary construction … is intended to express a configuration wherein portions of a textile element are not joined together by seams or other connections."
• A first area and a second area with unitary construction and different stitch configurations / different yarns to impart varying properties — maps onto '484 claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 14.
• "Various warp knitting or weft knitting processes … include circular knitting and flat knitting" — expressly names flat knitting as an available weft-knit process.
• Edges joined to form a first seam extending longitudinally along a lower region of the upper, and a second seam extending along a heel region (claims 39–41 of '011) — maps onto '484 claims 16 and 17.
• Textile element as exterior layer, intermediate layer, or interior layer; forming interior and/or exterior surfaces ('011 claims 29–31, 42–43) — maps onto '484 claims 5 and 6.
• Knitting-machine-formed outline / knit-to-shape features ('011 claims 1, 36) — maps onto '484 claim 9.

What Dua '592 does not supply: a domed, three-dimensional knit structure formed in the knitting process, and flat-knit overlapped loops. That gap is filled by Hong and Lockwood/Voughlohn.

4.2 Hong — knitted three-dimensional forms on flat-knitting machines

Per the record excerpts, Hong teaches knitting three-dimensional structures on flat-knitting machines by "transferring" a "three-dimensional form" to a "two-dimensional pattern" for knitting, with worked examples including a "knee" form fabric, and expressly motivates the technique by explaining that "the ability of knitting to shape [on] the flat knitting machines … reduce[s] waste of expensive materials during cutting."

Why Hong supplies the domed limitation: the '484 patent's own stated advantage is precisely that "flat knitting can be used to provide textile structures for use in footwear uppers of a final desired shape such that textile cutting steps can be avoided," and that "flat knitted elements also can be formed directly in desired three dimensional shapes, which can help avoid the need to use additional support structures." Hong teaches the same proposition in the knitting arts generally. Under KSR (550 U.S. at 417), "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."

Nike's counter-argument and why it failed: Nike argued (i) Hong "does not disclose knitting footwear" — its example is a knee form — and (ii) a skilled artisan in 2006 "would not have reasonably expected to succeed in forming a three-dimensional structure during the knitting process," because Hong's method converts a 3D form into a 2D pattern that must then be seamed into shape. That argument has real traction on the "formed during the flat-knitting process" construction, and it is the strongest non-obviousness position available on claim 1. It nonetheless lost, because (a) the field-of-endeavor objection is weak where the reference is a knitting-methodology reference and the claim is a knitting-methodology claim, and (b) the "expectation of success" objection is undercut by Dua '592's own specification, which expressly contemplates flat knitting forming "generally three-dimensional structures."

4.3 Lockwood — the domed/three-part geometry

Lockwood is deployed in all four grounds, and Nike's own framing is telling: Nike argued that "Lockwood in combination with Dua and/or Norton fails to teach or suggest that the 'domed, three-dimensional structure' of the 'flat-knitted element' is formed … in a flat-knitting process." That framing concedes the point that matters less and disputes the point that matters more: Lockwood supplies the domed central portion with side portions; the dispute is only whether Lockwood's structure is flat-knitted. In Ground 1/2, Lockwood is combined with Norton (a knitting reference) to bridge exactly that gap.

Grounding caveat. I could retrieve the function Lockwood, Norton, Hong, and Voughlohn perform in the grounds (from the POR headings and the petition/Institution excerpts), but I could not open the primary documents themselves in this session to quote their disclosures verbatim. The characterizations above are grounded in the IPR record excerpts and should be verified against the exhibits (Lockwood, Norton, Hong, Voughlohn) before being relied on in a filing.

4.4 Motivation to combine (Ground 3)

1. Common field and common problem: all three references address shaping knit textile articles while avoiding cutting waste. Dua '592 states the efficiency rationale for a unitary knit upper; Hong states the waste-reduction rationale for flat-knit shaping; Lockwood supplies the geometric form of a footwear upper with a domed instep area and side flaps.
2. Predictable, finite solution set: the '484 specification itself asserts that flat knitting of 3D shapes is an available, known capability. Where "there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," the combination is obvious (KSR; Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364–65).
3. Reasonable expectation of success: expressly argued and accepted; flat knitting of shaped/3D knit articles was a documented capability (Hong; Spencer, Knitting Technology (3d ed. 2001)).
4. No teaching away: Dua '592 affirmatively lists flat knitting among suitable processes; nothing in Hong or Lockwood disparages flat-knit formation of a 3D footwear shell.
5. Design incentive / market forces: "may eliminate seams and at least some sewing," lighter/more flexible product, no cut-edge finishing — all recited advantages in the '484 specification itself, i.e., recognized before the filing.

---

5. The loop claims — + Voughlohn (Ground 4: claims 2–4, 18, 19)

Claim 10's "second layer being flat-knitted with the first layer at opposite ends of the second layer to form an overlapped loop," and claims 2, 3, 4, and 18's unitary loops, were addressed by adding Voughlohn. Nike's sole attack on this ground was that "the Dua, Hong, Lockwood, and Voughlohn combination fails to teach or suggest a 'loop' being formed of 'unitary construction' with the 'flat-knitted element.'" That is a narrow, largely semantic objection: a flat-knit double-layer structure is by definition "of unitary construction" if the layers are interlooped/joined at their ends during knitting — the very proposition the '484 specification advances ("layers are joined to each other such that opposite sides of one layer are formed of unitary construction with the other layer," as with channels 44, 54 and lace loops 45).

Independent support for the loop limitation from the '484 page's own prior-art face: flat knitting's capacity to form "pockets, tunnels, or other layered structures" is not a '484 discovery — it is a capability of the machine class, documented in general knitting literature (cf. Spencer, Knitting Technology, 3d ed. 2001, part of the record in the parallel '011 proceeding). A POSITA seeking a lace-receiving loop or a channel for a lace element (see '484 FIGS. 8D/9A, lace elements 33 threading channels 44, 54) would predictably select this known flat-knit technique. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (using a "known technique" to improve a similar device in the same way).

---

6. Independent alternative combinations drawn from the '484 page's own prior-art face

Even setting the IPR grounds aside, the '484 record itself supports several further § 103 combinations. Important filter first: the "Families Citing this Family (287)" list must be read for dates, not mere citation. Most entries post-date the November 2006 critical date and are therefore not § 102 art — e.g., DE 10 2009 028 627 (Adidas, 2009), US 8,490,299 (2008-12-18), US 8,540,191 (Reebok, 2007-04-10), US 8,225,530 (a sibling in the same '484 family, same Nov. 2006 priority — not art against itself). The usable pre-November-2006 references are:

Combination B — Nishida + Schuessler I & II + Spencer + Dua '592

Nishida supplies a shoe upper knit-formed with an explicit cutting-waste-reduction motivation; Schuessler I supplies knitting a finished article without cutting any portion of the knitted swatch (i.e., truly finished knit edges — '484 claim 9); Schuessler II supplies the machine; Spencer supplies the well-knownness of stitch omission and flat-knit shaping; Dua '592 supplies the footwear-upper context, flat knitting, and differentiated zones. Motivation: the express waste/cost-reduction rationale, plus the shared field. This is the same combination architecture the Federal Circuit upheld as supported by substantial evidence in Nike v. Adidas (the '011 FLYKNIT patents, 2004 priority) — Nike I, 812 F.3d 1335–38 (motivation to combine Nishida with the Schuessler references upheld). Its persuasive force here is strengthened because the '484 family has a later priority date (2006) and therefore faces a larger prior-art universe.

Combination C — Glidden + McDonald + Dua '592 + Hong

Glidden's knit sock-shaped upper (comfort, stretchability, light weight, breathability, "economy of materials … in the manufacture") plus McDonald's varied knit-construction zones plus Dua '592's sole structure/unitary construction plus Hong's flat-knit 3D shaping directly renders claim 1 obvious — three unitary portions, domed middle, flat-knit formation. Motivation is the explicit manufacturing-economy objective in Glidden and the same objective stated in Dua '592's background ("utilizing multiple materials … may be an inefficient practice").

Combination D — any of the above + Zaino and/or US 2006/0048413 (for the layered/pocket aspects)

For claim 10's second layer and the "pockets, tunnels, or other layered structures" advantage, Zaino (polymer-injected reinforcing zones on a textile upper) and US 2006/0048413 (rubber/foam web sandwiched between two textile structures, with regional stretchability/durability) establish both the layered-textile-upper concept and the motivation to create localized multi-layer regions of an upper for functional effect.

---

7. Motivation-to-combine rationales, consolidated (for the record)

---

8. Claim-by-claim outcome summary (Ground 3, as adjudicated)

All claims 1–19 were found unpatentable, and all claims 1–19 were subsequently cancelled by certificate.

---

9. Objective indicia — why they did not save the claims

Nike's strongest non-obviousness narrative is the one it ran (unsuccessfully) in the related '011 proceeding: long-felt need for eliminating waste in the manufacture of knit textile uppers, coupled with the commercial "quantum leap" of FLYKNIT. That argument failed in the '011 matter on two grounds that carry over directly:

1. Pre-existing alternative solutions — the Federal Circuit affirmed that other methods of minimizing waste existed before the invention (Nishida's inexpensive cutting-waste material; Schuessler's knit-to-shape). Nike II, 955 F.3d at 51–55.
2. Nexus — the evidence related to knit uppers as a class (and the '011 patents), not to the specific '484 limitations (dome formed in flat knitting; overlapped flat-knit loop). Without a nexus, the evidence carries little weight (In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580).

Note the asymmetry that makes the '484 more vulnerable than the '011: the '484 has a 2006 priority date, two years later than the '011's 2004 date, and its core insight — flat-knit 3D shaping of a footwear upper — was, by 2006, squarely documented in the knitting literature (Hong; Spencer) and presaged by the assignee's own '011/'592 disclosure, which expressly lists flat knitting.

---

10. Explicit uncertainties and practice notes

1. Primary documents not opened. I verified the identity and role of Lockwood, Hong, Norton, and Voughlohn from the IPR2023-01460 Institution Decision/POR excerpts, but did not retrieve or quote their specifications in this session. Before relying on any ground in a filing, obtain: (a) the IPR2023-01460 Final Written Decision, which states the Board's actual adopted reasoning and which ground carried which claim; (b) the Petition; and (c) the four exhibits. The FWD is the only artifact that tells you which single ground survived; my reconstruction assumes Ground 3 (Dua + Hong + Lockwood) as the primary vehicle, which is consistent with the POR's allocation of claims 1–19 to it.
2. Comparison to the earlier-generated section. That section recorded the FWD as holding all claims unpatentable and the certificate as cancelling claims 1–19. Nothing in this analysis contradicts it; this section supplies the § 103 mechanics behind that result. The one item to reconcile is the "Active" status on Google Patents versus the certificate of cancellation — as flagged twice above, treat the certificate as operative and the status flag as stale.
3. Reference-date hygiene. Do not treat entries in the "Families Citing this Family (287)" list as prior art en masse. Many are post-2006 (DE102009028627, US8,490,299, US8,540,191, US11,424,261, US11,490,676, US2017/0280817, etc.), and US 8,225,530 and US 8,196,317 are same-family/same-priority members, not art against the '484.
4. The claim-1 counter-argument worth preserving. If a future proceeding ever requires defending an analogous claim, the two best positions are: (a) field of endeavor — Hong is a knitting-methodology reference whose examples (a "knee" form) are seamed from a 2D pattern and are not footwear; and (b) reasonable expectation of success — a 2006 artisan would not have expected a flat-knitting machine to produce a self-supporting domed footwear shell without a last or support structure. Both were advanced and both were rejected, but they are the arguments with genuine technical content, and their rejection depended on the agreed construction and on Dua '592's own admission that flat knitting forms "generally three-dimensional structures."
5. Overall posture. Because claims 1–19 are cancelled and the appeal was dismissed, further § 103 analysis of the '484 has no continuing validity consequence. It remains relevant only as (i) prior-art/family context for the broader Nike knit-upper portfolio, and (ii) a template for how flat-knit 3D-shaping claims are likely to be assessed in other patents sharing this specification (e.g., the '046, '011, '749, '598, '288, '530, '317 family members).