US 10070679

I'll search for this specific patent number.

Now let me check for any CAFC 2026 docket activity and get the claim text.

Let me verify the CAFC 2026 docket and the PTAB proceedings involving this patent.

US 10,070,679 B2 — "Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure"

Note on identifier interpretation: I read "10070679" literally as US 10,070,679 B2. All content below refers only to that patent; no similarly-numbered patents are included.

Search-coverage caveat: I do not have direct USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR access in this session; I relied on Google Patents, the published application PDF (US 2016/0088894 A1), PTAB/PTAB-adjacent databases, and CAFC opinion pages. Where I could not confirm something from those sources, I say so explicitly.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Priority chain (per the patent's own cross-reference section): This application is a continuation of 14/535,448 (filed Nov. 7, 2014, issued as U.S. 9,078,488), which claims §119(e) benefit of provisional 62/057,264 ("Article of Footwear Incorporating A Knitted Component with Inlaid Tensile Elements and Method of Assembly") and provisional 62/057,293 ("Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure"), both filed September 30, 2014.

Minor discrepancy to flag: One aggregator page listed the priority date as "2014-09-29." The authoritative front page and the published application both say September 30, 2014. I treat Sept. 30, 2014 as correct.

Abstract (verbatim, per the patent)

"An article of footwear including an upper incorporating a knitted component having color-shifting properties is provided. Color-shift properties can be generated by one or more lenticular knit structures disposed across the upper of the article of footwear. The lenticular knit structures are formed of unitary knit construction with the remaining portions of the knitted component. The lenticular knit structures have portions formed with different yarns. The different yarns on the portions of the lenticular knit structures generate a visual effect that changes the color of the article of footwear depending on the viewing angle."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The specification's "Summary" section is organized as three "aspects," which correspond to the three independent claims:

Independent claim 1 — an article of footwear. A shoe with an upper and a sole attached to the upper, where the upper contains a knitted component made as one piece ("unitary knit construction"). The knitted component has at least one lenticular knit structure — practically, a raised, rib-like/tubular knit bump — with a first portion on one side and a second portion on the opposite side of that structure, plus a base portion of knit material next to it. The lenticular structure stands proud of (extends away from) the base portion on the exterior surface of the upper. Because the two sides of the raised structure face different directions, looking at the shoe from a first viewing angle presents the first portion (a first visual effect, e.g., a first color) and looking from a different second viewing angle presents the second portion (a second, different visual effect). In short: raised knit ribs whose two flanks face different ways create angle-dependent color/appearance shifts.

Independent claim 2 (knitted component) — a knitted component for use in an article. Rather than claiming the whole shoe, this claims the knit piece itself, and it requires a plurality of lenticular knit structures. Each structure has a first portion formed using a first yarn on one side and a second portion formed using a second yarn on the opposite side, where the first yarn and second yarn are different (e.g., different color, texture, denier, or other yarn characteristic). A base portion sits between adjacent lenticular knit structures, and the first portion, second portion, and base portion are all of unitary knit construction with the knitted component (i.e., knit together as one piece, not sewn or glued on). Same angle-dependent visual-effect limitation as claim 1 — here recited with respect to viewing the knitted component.

Independent claim 3 (method) — a method of manufacturing the knitted component. Knit a base portion; knit a first portion of a lenticular knit structure using a first yarn; knit a second portion using a second, different yarn. The lenticular knit structure is formed so the first and second portions are on opposite sides of it and the structure extends away from the base portion in a vertical direction (i.e., it is a raised, three-dimensional knit element, not a flat surface pattern). Again, the first portion produces a first visual effect at a first viewing angle and the second portion a second, different visual effect at a second viewing angle.

Claim-numbering caveat: The three independent claims are readily identifiable from the specification's three parallel "aspects." I was not able to confirm the exact independent claim numbers from an authoritative claim set in this session. A closely related patent in the same family (U.S. 9,078,488, the parent of this application, challenged in the PTAB filing discussed below) was analyzed claim-by-claim as independent claims 1, 10, and 16 (with a dependent claim 17 reciting that the base portion, first portion, and second portion are formed of unitary knit construction during a knitting process), which is consistent with this family's claim architecture and my working expectation for the '679 patent — but I flag that as an inference, not a verified citation.

Additional subject matter in the disclosure (not necessarily claimed): the lenticular knit structures may be hollow tubular rib structures formed by two co-extensive, overlapping knit layers; an inlaid tensile element (e.g., for lace-receiving members) may run through the hollow interior; a second embodiment (FIGS. 16–22) adds an "upper portion"/third yarn on top of the rib to give a three-portion, third visual effect, constant across viewing angles, in a discrete area 1602 of the upper.

Litigation / PTAB activity found

PTAB — IPR2019-01190, PUMA North America, Inc. v. Meir et al. (Nike). Filed June 11, 2019; respondent application 14/734,422; respondent patent 10,070,679; Tech Center 3700. Status: Terminated — Settled, termination date December 3, 2019. (Google Patents' "Family has litigation" flag points to this same proceeding.)

• Uncertainty: A declaration filed in the IPR2019-01190 docket (Ex. 1007, Declaration of Michael Steszyn) analyzes claims of U.S. 9,078,488 — the parent patent — rather than 10,070,679. It is therefore possible that PUMA's challenge covered more than one family member, or that these documents have been aggregated across related proceedings. I could not fully resolve this within this session; I flag it rather than assert that only the '679 patent was at issue.
• Google Patents also shows a "first worldwide family litigation" link via the Darts-ip database (family 53506602), indicating at least one non-US litigation matter in the family.

CAFC 2026 dockets — negative finding for this patent. I searched CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent number. The only 2026 Federal Circuit footwear matter surfaced involving Nike is Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 2026-1275, a nonprecedential order dated May 5, 2026, dismissing the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), issued as a mandate. That appeal arises from IPR2024-00460, which concerns U.S. Patent 8,266,749 — not 10,070,679. I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity naming U.S. 10,070,679. This is a search-based negative finding, not a certification that none exists; a definitive check would require docket-by-docket queries against the CAFC's own docket system.

Related family members (from the record)

Continuations claiming priority from this family include US 15/588,253 → US 10,822,728 B2; US 15/799,677 → US 10,900,149 B2; US 16/242,747 → US 11,142,853 B2; US 16/242,723 → US 11,306,420 B2; US 17/086,861 → US 11,674,244 B2; US 18/302,621 → US 12,359,352 B2; and US 19/237,688 → US 2025/0305190 A1.

Classifications: A43B 1/02, 1/04, 23/02, 23/04; D04B 1/10, 1/12, 1/126, 1/22; D10B 2401/20, 2403/0113, 2403/02411, 2501/043.

Things I am explicitly uncertain about

1. Exact claim numbering and full verbatim claim text of U.S. 10,070,679 — I described the three independent claims from the patent's own summary and specification, and inferred the numbering (1/10/16) from the parallel parent patent's PTAB analysis. Treat the claim numbers as unconfirmed.
2. Whether PUMA's IPR2019-01190 challenged only the '679 patent, or also the '488 patent — the docket record I retrieved contained collateral documents for the '488 patent.
3. Current real-time legal status ("Active") is as reported by Google Patents at the time of the fetch, not a live PatentCenter/PAIR read, and no legal-conclusions are intended.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10070679.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,070,679

Important framing note: U.S. Patent 10,070,679 ("the '679 patent"), titled "Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure," issued September 11, 2018 to inventors Adrian Meir and Daniel A. Podhajny, assigned to Nike, Inc. It is a continuation of Ser. No. 14/535,448 and claims priority to the Sept. 30, 2014 provisional filings (62/057,264 and 62/057,293). Because the patent issued in late 2018, the litigation window in which it could have been asserted is comparatively short — this materially limits the pool of possible cases.

I identified one district court action in which the '679 patent was asserted, plus a related PTAB proceeding. I could not confirm any other case asserting this specific patent.

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

Key point on the '679 patent specifically: The May 3, 2018 original complaint did not assert the '679 patent (the patent did not exist yet — it issued September 11, 2018). The '679 patent entered the case only by amended pleading. Note also that the '679 patent and the '488 patent share the identical title, "Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure," and both were at issue in this litigation — a Markman decision in the case referred to "the '488 patent and 10,070,679 ('the '679 patent'), both entitled 'Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure.'" Do not conflate these two patents; the '488 patent is the earlier-issued (July 14, 2015) Nike lenticular knit patent and was in the original complaint, whereas the '679 patent is the later-issued continuation added later.

Sources:

• Court docket summary: https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--18-cv-10876/Nike_Inc_v._PUMA_North_America_Inc/
• Original complaint (Knobbe Martens copy): https://www.knobbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nike-v-Puma-MAD-18cv10876-complaint.pdf
• Markman/opinion referencing both the '488 and '679 patents: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9731541](/patent/9731541)/nike-inc-v-puma-north-america-inc/
• Supplements referencing amendment adding the '679 patent: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1525861](/patent/1525861)/download-documents

2. PUMA North America, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (inventors Meir et al.) — IPR2019-01190

Not a district court case, but directly tied to the '679 patent and worth listing because it is the only other adversarial proceeding I could confirm on this patent.

This IPR was the parallel validity attack to the district court case — PUMA had stated its intent to file IPRs on the '679 and '411 patents.

Sources:

• https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2019-01190
• Refund request document confirming patent, claim 1, and Dec. 3, 2019 termination: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-01190/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._10070679/docs/12-04-2019-Petitioner/Refund_Request-11-Petitioners_Request_for_Refund_of_Post_Institution_Fees.pdf

What I could NOT confirm

• No other district court case asserting the '679 patent was confirmed in this search. In particular:
  • Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:23-cv-09346 (C.D. Cal.) is an active Nike knit-patent case (docket activity through May 2026, including letters rogatory and depositions), but the filings I retrieved reference other patents (e.g., the '749, '781, and '511 patents) and Skechers PTAB challenges (IPR2025-00141, IPR2025-00151) involving U.S. 9,510,636. I did not find confirmation that the '679 patent is asserted in that case.
  • I did not confirm the '679 patent in Nike's other knit-related campaigns (e.g., against adidas or lululemon). Those complaints asserted a different set of knit patents as far as I can verify.
• Terms of the Nike–PUMA settlement are confidential; the dismissal is reflected in the docket, but I cannot state whether it was with or without prejudice, nor any license terms.
• I was unable to run a complete PACER and Unified Patents litigation-database sweep in this session. My answer is limited to the sources retrieved above. If you need a fully exhaustive check, the authoritative next steps would be a PACER docket search across all district courts for "10,070,679" and a query of the Unified Patents litigation database (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and Darts-IP family 53506602 (linked from the Google Patents page for this patent as "First worldwide family litigation filed").

Bottom line

For U.S. Patent 10,070,679, the confirmed record shows:

1. Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., D. Mass. 1:18-cv-10876 — the '679 patent was added by amended complaint; case terminated January 13, 2020 (settlement).
2. PUMA North America, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2019-01190 — PTAB challenge to claim 1 of the '679 patent; terminated-settled December 3, 2019.

Both were resolved in late 2019/early 2020, consistent with a global resolution between Nike and PUMA on the Flyknit/lenticular-knit patents. I have no confirmed record of any active litigation involving the '679 patent as of April 26, 2026 — but please treat that as a statement about what I could verify, not as a certification that no other case exists.

I'll start by checking the structured PTAB block against what web sources surface, since the patent page itself already hinted at an IPR.

The patent page flags IPR2019-01190 (PUMA v. Nike). Let me pin down exactly what happened to it and whether any other petitions target this patent.

Good — I have the core proceeding. Let me verify there are no other petitions against '679, and confirm the panel/termination details.

I hit the tool-call ceiling before I could run additional checks, but the searches returned enough to reconstruct the picture. One important flag: the structured ODP block and the public record disagree, and the disagreement matters.

Proceedings overview

Public web sources show exactly one AIA trial proceeding against US 10,070,679 — IPR2019-01190 (PUMA North America v. Nike) — and it was dismissed by joint motion on 2019-12-03 before the Board ever decided institution; the ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" ingest shows zero. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 1 settled / 0 institution-denied (the case never reached an institution decision, so it is not a discretionary denial).

Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is untested, not hardened. No claim has been canceled and no claim has been upheld — PUMA simply bought its way out. Nothing in the record estops any petitioner or narrows any claim, so the full scope of the patent as issued (claim 1 and everything depending from it) is still live and fully available to be asserted against you. The silver lining is that PUMA's petition and exhibits are now public, giving you a free invalidity roadmap that someone with real litigation incentive already paid to develop.

IPR2019-01190 — PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2019-06-11
• Status: Terminated — settled prior to institution of trial. Board decision captioned "Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial, 37 C.F.R. § 42.74" (Paper 10, 2019-12-03). Aggregator records gloss this as "Terminated-Settled." No Final Written Decision exists.
• Judge panel: The termination decision's caption lists six APJs across the four related PUMA–Nike proceedings — Scott A. Daniels, Mitchell G. Weatherly, Carl M. DeFranco, Amanda F. Wieker, Matthew S. Meyers, and Stephen E. Belisle — with APJ Wieker authoring. Caveat: the caption is shared across IPR2019-01059/01060/01190/01342, so I cannot confirm from the text I retrieved which three APJs sat on the '679 panel specifically.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claim 1 only — confirmed verbatim by Petitioner's refund request: "PUMA North America, Inc. ('Petitioner') filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,070,679." The petition's Statement of Reasons presents a single anticipation theory: "Independent Claim 1 is Anticipated by Shindo" — i.e., § 102, over a certified translation of Japanese Patent No. 10298847 ("Shindo," Ex. 1005). The exhibit list also includes U.S. Patent No. 9,078,488 (Ex. 1001) and the '488/'679 file histories (Ex. 1003). I retrieved the petition's cover, TOC, and exhibit list but not the full body, so I cannot exclude an alternative/backup ground that wasn't reflected in the headings — treat "§ 102 over Shindo, claim 1" as the ground shown, not a proven exclusive list.
• Institution decision: None issued. Because the parties settled first, the Board never reached § 314(a). The Board wrote: "Each case is in a preliminary stage. We have not yet issued decisions regarding whether to institute trial. Accordingly… we determine that it is appropriate to dismiss these petitions and terminate these proceedings."
• Final Written Decision: None. There is no claim-level verdict to report — do not let anyone tell you claim 1 was "confirmed." It was neither confirmed nor canceled.
• Settlement / termination: Joint motion filed 2019-12-02; terminated 2019-12-03. The parties stated the petitions were dismissed "based on their entry into a written confidential settlement agreement that fully resolved this matter." The Board granted the parties' joint request under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential and keep it separate from the patent file — the terms are not public. Corroborating the pre-institution posture, PUMA filed a request on 2019-12-04 for a $15,000 refund of post-institution fees.
• Appeal: None. With no FWD and no institution, there was nothing appealable to the Federal Circuit. No CAFC docket exists for this patent.
• Defensive value: You get the roadmap without the risk. Because no trial was instituted, § 315(e) estoppel never attached — PUMA (and its privies) are not statutorily barred from re-raising Shindo or anything else, and neither are you. But the Shindo reference and the '488 patent are now "previously presented" art, which invites a § 325(d) discretionary-denial fight if you lead with them unchanged. Best practice: either materially distinguish Shindo on the '679 claim language, or pair it with genuinely new art.
• Sources: PTAB E2E (case IPR2019-01190); termination decision copy; petition copy; Google Patents record.

Strategic summary

Claim status — everything is UNTESTED; nothing is CANCELED, nothing is SUSTAINED. The only claim ever challenged was claim 1, and the challenge died at the joint-motion stage. There is no FWD, no Certificate of Correction-entered cancellation, no substitute claims, and no adverse claim construction. For a defendant, this cuts the wrong way: where a patent has been through IPR and narrowed, you inherit a smaller target; here the target is full-sized. The anticipated expiration of 2034-11-07 (per the patent record) means a long enforcement runway.

Estoppel landscape — essentially empty, which is good news for a new defendant. § 315(e)(2) estoppel requires an instituted trial that reached a FWD; none exists here. Likewise § 317(b) estoppel is inapplicable to a pre-institution dismissal. So all grounds PUMA raised, and every ground it reasonably could have raised, remain available to you in district court and to the Board — including Shindo itself and the '488 patent. Your real constraints are statutory/procedural, not estoppel: (1) § 315(b) — file within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '679; and (2) the Board's § 325(d) discretion to deny institution on art "previously presented to the Office" — a live risk given PUMA's public petition, but a risk that is mitigated (not eliminated) by the fact that the Board never substantively evaluated that art.

Pattern signals — coordinated competitor campaign, no defensive aggregator. PUMA filed a wave of IPRs against Nike's knit-upper portfolio, and IPR2019-01190 was one of four terminated together on 2019-12-03: IPR2019-01059 (U.S. 9,375,046 B2), IPR2019-01060 (U.S. 9,078,488 B1), IPR2019-01190 (U.S. 10,070,679 B1), and IPR2019-01342 (U.S. 10,098,411 B2) — i.e., PUMA attacked the whole '679 family in one coordinated push tied to the D. Mass. infringement action, Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc., C.A. No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS, and then global-settled. Note also that PUMA filed IPR2019-01190 on 2019-06-11, the last day of the nine-month PGR window (grant was 2018-09-11) — Nike's stay opposition in the district case quotes PUMA confirming it "elected not [to file PGR]." Correction to a common misread: the "Unified Patents" name on the Google Patents PTAB link is data-source attribution for the litigation feed ("'Unified Patents PTAB Data' by Unified Patents is licensed under CC BY 4.0"), not a petitioner — there is no evidence Unified Patents ever filed against the '679.

Family context you should carry into a defense (do not confuse these with '679). The related Nike knit patents have gone differently: adidas's IPR on U.S. 7,347,011 (the FLYKNIT patent, IPR2013-00067) ended with claims 1–46 canceled and substitute claims 47–50 refused, spawning a long line of Nike appeals (Nike v. adidas, 812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016); nos. 2019-1262, 2021-1903; cert petition in No. 22-927) — showing Nike litigates PTAB losses aggressively. That history is instructive about Nike's posture, but it is a different patent and does no work for you on the '679.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not accept a characterization that "the '679 survived IPR." It did neither. Get the record yourself: the operative document is the 2019-12-03 termination decision (Paper 10), available via PTAB E2E under IPR2019-01190. There is no FWD to cite — if opposing counsel or a demand letter implies otherwise, that implication is unsupported.
2. Preserve § 315(b) timing. The one-year clock runs from service of a complaint on you; there is no estoppel to inherit, so a well-built petition remains a viable first-line defense.
3. Build around § 325(d). Pull PUMA's petition and exhibits (Ex. 1005 Shindo, Ex. 1001 the '488 patent, Ex. 1003 file histories) from the public docket, then either (a) show the Board never substantively reached that art because of the pre-institution dismissal, or (b) lead with new art not presented by PUMA. Do not file Shindo verbatim and expect institution on the strength of the '679's untested status alone.
4. Treat the settlement as a dead end for evidence. The agreement is confidential under § 42.74(c) and lives in a separate file; do not count on obtaining PUMA's motivation or any admissions.
5. No active proceedings means no trial-stage milestones to track. If you are being asserted now, the operative timeline is your own: § 315(b) petition deadline, then a § 314(b) institution deadline three months after any completed POPR, then a FWD within one year of institution (extendable to 18 months for good cause under § 316(a)(11)). The absence of a merits decision is itself the signal: PUMA filed on the last day of the PGR window and walked away within six months, so the '679's claim 1 has never been stress-tested by anyone.

Confidence and gaps: the single-proceeding count rests on the structured ODP block (zero) plus web sources (one terminated case); I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM against the '679 beyond IPR2019-01190 in the searches I was able to complete, but I could not exhaustively sweep every aggregator. The claim-1-only scope and the Shindo anticipation ground come from the petition cover/TOC and PUMA's refund request — I did not obtain the petition body, so the full ground list is unverified. The panel attribution is drawn from a multi-case caption and should be confirmed against the individual '679 papers before you rely on it.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record and ownership chain. Let me start by pulling the USPTO assignment data and related litigation/PTAB records.

Let me pull the specific assignment/ownership records and the Puma IPR outcome.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,070,679 B2

"Article of footwear incorporating a lenticular knit structure" · Nike, Inc. · App. 14/734,422 · Issued 2018-09-11

Scope note / limitation. I was able to reach Google Patents' legal-events record, the Unified Patents portal, USPTO PTAB filings, and litigation pleadings within this session, but I hit the tool-call ceiling before completing a direct query of assignmentcenter.uspto.gov. The finding below (no post-issuance assignment) is based on the legal-events and third-party records that were reachable; no reel/frame is cited because none surfaced, and I am flagging that as unverified rather than inventing one. Direct confirmation link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Both are corporate Nike inventors, not independent founders. There is no evidence of either departing Nike within 12 months of the 2015-06-09 filing — this is a pure in-house Nike development, and no departure/fire-sale precursor is visible.
• Note that Nike's foreign counterpart filings in this family commonly name Nike Innovate C.V. (a Dutch partnership, One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005-6453) as applicant, while the US case here remained in the name of Nike, Inc. This applicant split is Nike's standard practice on knit technology and is not an assignment event.
• Caveat: inventor employer is inferred from the assignee of record and Nike's inventor-compensation program; I could not independently confirm individual employment records.

Original assignee

• Entity: Nike, Inc. — an Oregon corporation, One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005-6453. Listed as both original and current assignee on Google Patents ("Current Assignee … Nike Inc"; "Original Assignee … Nike Inc").
• Primary line of business: Athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment. Publicly traded (NYSE: NKE).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The claimed subject matter is the color-shifting/knit-rib architecture used in Nike's Flyknit uppers. Nike's own filings describe Flyknit as "a platform technology … incorporated throughout its product categories," and its 2012 Flyknit Racer / Flyknit Trainer+ as the first commercial embodiments of the family (Nike v. Puma, D. Mass. 18-cv-10876, ¶¶ 18–26). Related family members (e.g., US 9,375,046; 9,078,488; 8,266,749) are the patents Nike pleaded as the "Flyknit Patents."
• Current status: Operating, profitable, publicly traded. Not in bankruptcy, not dissolved, not acquired. Nike states it "owns more than 300 issued utility patents directed to its Flyknit technology" (same complaint, ¶ 26).
• Family context: This patent is a continuation of App. 14/535,448 (filed 2014-11-07), which claims 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) benefit of provisionals 62/057,264 and 62/057,293 (both filed 2014-09-30). The family has continued to issue through at least US 12,359,352 (2025), and the Google Patents record lists related grants US 10,822,728; 10,900,149; 11,142,853; 11,306,420; 11,674,244 — all Nike-owned.

Assignment timeline

No recorded post-issuance assignment of US 10,070,679 was found in the sources reachable for this analysis.

• 2015-06-09 — Application filed by Nike, Inc. (this is an assignee-at-filing / original-ownership event, not a recorded conveyance).
• 2016-03-31 — Publication of US 2016/0088894 A1 (Nike, Inc.).
• 2018-09-11 — Patent granted; assignee of record Nike, Inc.
• The Google Patents legal-events table shows no "Assigned to" entries — only Filed by Nike Inc, Publication, and Grant. The Unified Patents portal likewise lists the assignee as Nike Inc, with no downstream assignee chain.

Conclusion: the assignment chain appears to consist of the original assignment to Nike, Inc. only, which ordinarily means the original assignee still owns the patent. I found no shell-entity transfer, no licensing LLC, and no NPE assignee to report. (Because I could not complete the live Assignment Center query, treat "no records" as strongly indicated but not formally verified; no reel/frame is asserted.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10070679
    2014 : Provisionals filed by Nike Inc
         : Parent application filed
    2015 : Continuation application filed
    2016 : Application published
    2018 : Patent issued to Nike Inc
         : Nike sues Puma for infringement
    2019 : Puma files IPR2019-01190
    2020 : IPR terminated by settlement

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No transfer of any kind appears in the record. Ownership has remained with the original operating-company assignee (Nike, Inc.) from filing (2015-06-09) through the last legal event available (2025, via the family's continued grants). There is no "IP / Holdings / Ventures" assignee, no registered-agent address, and no single-purpose LLC anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee matches any entity on the supplied NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). The only assertion activity on this patent is by Nike against Puma — an operating competitor (Nike v. Puma, D. Mass. 18-cv-10876).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / not applicable. With no recorded assignments, there is no recording correspondent in the chain to be repeated. Note the non sequitur trap: the IPR filings here were prepared by Puma's counsel, not by any assignee-side recording agent — PTAB counsel is irrelevant to the assignment-correspondent signal. Nike's prosecution counsel of record is likewise a normal operating-company firm, not an NPE recording agent.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive assignments; nothing moving through chained LLCs. Contrast with the classic pattern of 2–3 hops inside 24 months through a common correspondent address.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. Nike asserted directly, with no assignment preceding suit. The relevant docket sequence runs the opposite direction from the NPE playbook: Nike sued Puma first (2018), and Puma counter-attacked at the PTAB, filing IPR2019-01190 on 2019-06-11 challenging claim 1 of this patent (plus companion IPRs: IPR2019-01059 against US 9,375,046; IPR2019-01060 against US 9,078,488; IPR2019-01342 against US 10,098,411). IPR2019-01190 terminated — settled (Final Written Decision paper dated 2019-12-03 concerned the companion patents; the '679 case resolved by settlement, consistent with a global Nike–Puma peace).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Nike, Inc. has never filed Chapter 7/11; no patents sold in proceedings. No Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style event.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer on this patent. Nike's enforcement is direct and self-funded, not farmed out to a proxy asserter.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent remains with Nike and, if anything, was the target of a third-party challenge (Unified's portal merely indexes it as prior art/related art — indexing is not ownership).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification (2–3 sentences): Ownership of US 10,070,679 has remained with Nike, Inc. continuously from the 2015-06-09 filing of App. 14/734,422 through grant on 2018-09-11, with no recorded assignment and no reel/frame entries to cite in any reachable source. Nike is a publicly traded operating company whose Flyknit products embody the claims, and it asserted this patent family directly against a competitor, Puma, in Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc., D. Mass. No. 18-cv-10876 (2018) — prompting Puma's counter-challenge IPR2019-01190 (filed 2019-06-11, terminated-settled), which is ordinary commercial patent warfare, not NPE conduct. Every one of the eight NPE signals is not present; there is not a single evidence-backed indicator of a shell-entity transfer, cascading assignment, or known asserter in this chain.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10070679"; mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Caveat: the "no assignments" finding is derived from Google Patents legal events, the Unified Patents portal, and PTAB/docket records rather than a completed live Assignment Center query, so it should be confirmed at the link above before being relied on in a formal chain-of-title opinion.

I'll research US patent 10070679 and its cited prior art references.

Let me dig into the actual citation records for this patent.

US 10,070,679 B2 — Prior-Art / Citation Analysis

Important scope note up front: I was able to verify the identity and bibliographic data of the target patent from the authoritative Google Patents full text you supplied plus live search results. I was not able to retrieve the actual front-page "References Cited" (Box 56) list of examiner-cited U.S. patent documents for US 10,070,679 B2 — no search result returned that table, and I will not fabricate it. Section 5 below gives the references that are verifiably cited within the four corners of the patent document (specification), and Section 8 explains exactly how to pull the authoritative Box 56 list so the § 102 mapping can be completed. I flag every item I could not confirm at high confidence.

1. Target patent — strict literal identification (verified)

Family/litigation flags on the record: "First worldwide family litigation filed" (Darts-ip family 53506602); PTAB case IPR2019-01190 filed (Settlement) — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01190

2. Identifiers that must NOT be conflated with this patent

Applying the strict-literal rule, the search returned several decoys that contain the digit string "10070679" but are different identifiers:

• JP10070679A / JPS5625847A — a Japanese application number 10070679 (1979-08-09), "Change-over system of clock distribution system," granted as JPS6251013B2. Unrelated to footwear. Do not report as prior art to US 10,070,679.
• US 4,285,246 and Chinese investor-relations pages surfaced by the query string — noise, not related.
• Reported priority date appears as 2014-09-30 (Google Patents front matter and unifiedpatents listing) and as 2014-09-29 on at least one Unified Patents page. Both are reproduced literally here as found; I did not auto-correct either.

3. Statutory framework for the § 102 analysis

US 10,070,679 has an effective filing date (2015-06-09 actual; 2014-09-30 earliest priority) after 16 March 2013, so the AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and § 102(a)(2) apply — not the pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Any reference cited in a 2016-era USPTO action will therefore be tagged "102(a)(1)" (publicly available before the effective filing date) or "102(a)(2)" (U.S. patent/application publication effectively filed before that date). Searches for this family elsewhere still show legacy "102(a), (b) & (e)" taggings from other, older patents (e.g., the U.S. Pat. No. 6,906,769 file-wrapper excerpt), which should not be imported onto the '679 patent.

Claim framework (from the patent's own SUMMARY plus the claim text quoted in PTAB papers) — useful because § 102 requires every element in one reference:

• Aspect A — article of footwear: upper + sole structure; upper has a knitted component of unitary knit construction; at least one lenticular knit structure with a first portion and a second portion on opposite sides; base portion adjacent; the lenticular structure extends away from the base portion on an exterior surface; first portion → first visual effect at a first viewing angle, second portion → second visual effect at a different second viewing angle.
• Aspect B — knitted component: a plurality of lenticular knit structures, each with a first portion (first yarn) on one side and a second portion (second yarn, different) on the opposite side; base portion between adjacent structures; first portion, second portion and base portion all of unitary knit construction; viewing-angle-dependent first/second visual effects.
• Aspect C — method: knitting a base portion; knitting a first portion with a first yarn; knitting a second portion with a second, different yarn; structure extends away from the base portion in a vertical direction; viewing-angle-dependent visual effects.
• The embossed physical structure is described as a tubular rib structure (two co-extensive, overlapping knit layers, hollow unsecured central area), with optional inlaid tensile element (e.g., lace-receiving loops).
• The alternate embodiment adds a third/upper portion (fourth yarn 907) giving a third visual effect that remains substantially constant across viewing angles, in a localized area 1602.

Note a discrepancy I could not resolve: one PTAB paper quotes claim 1 of the "'679 patent" as "A lenticular knit structure for providing color-shifting properties to a knitted component…", whereas the '679 SUMMARY leads with the article-of-footwear aspect. The granted claim set should be read from the patent's own Claims column before any invalidity position is finalized.

4. What the searches did and did not yield

• Did yield: the full patent text, family tables ("Other versions," "Cited By"), PTAB papers, and Nike's sibling patents.
• Did not yield: the granted-claims column verbatim; the front-page Box 56 cited-reference table; the IPR2019-01190 petition/exhibits (the only hit was a settlement-flagged portal entry, and the POPR text retrieved belongs to a different matter in which the '488 and '679 patents are co-asserted).
• Therefore the itemized "each patent citation → which claim it anticipates" mapping in Section 5 is built from references cited inside the patent document itself, not from the examiner's citation list, and is labeled as such.

5. References cited within the '679 document (verified from the patent text)

These are the references the specification itself identifies (incorporated by reference or relied on for disclosure of knit structures, machines, and manufacturing). Because each is Nike-owned foundational knitting art, they are the references most likely to also appear (and to matter) in the Box 56 list.

Caveat: I could not verify the issue dates of items 1–5 in this session; they are stated from recollection and must be confirmed against the printed patents or the USPTO patent database before being used in any invalidity contention. The '679 text recites these references by number and inventor only, without titles or dates, so no citation dates are quotable from the document itself.

6. References that appear in citation tables but are NOT prior art

The "Other versions," "Cited By," and family tables returned by the search include many entries that must not be classified as § 102 art:

• Sibling/family members (same priority 2014-09-30, Nike): US 10,822,728 B2; US 10,900,149 B2; US 11,142,853 B2; US 11,306,420 B2; US 11,674,244 B2; US 11,859,050 B2; US 11021817 B2; US 9,375,046 B2; US 9,404,205 B2; KR 102328379 B1; KR 102409594 B1; JP 7029480 B2; CN 106136453 A. These are own-family members (or foreign counterparts), not prior art.
• Later Nike filings citing '679 (e.g., US 10,227,660; US 10,479,066; US 10,477,911; US 10,555,581; US 10,674,791; US 10,802,810; US 11,103,028; US 11,151,873; US 2021/0047760 A1; US 2019/0142102 A1; US 2018/0049510 A1; US 2018/0343958 A1; US 2019/0313740 A1) — these are forward citations; a document cited by a patent cannot be prior art to it.
• Unrelated design/IPR noise, e.g., U.S. Design Pat. D851,262 ("Knee support") listing Meir as a named reference — not prior art.
• Other parties' applications surfaced in sibling prosecution (e.g., US 2019/0313740 A1 to Wolverine Outdoors; Adidas CN 113287835) — irrelevant to the '679's own filing date.

7. The IPR / litigation item

• PTAB case IPR2019-01190 is recorded on the '679 family as filed and settled. Because it settled, there is no final written decision on the merits attributable to it, and I could not retrieve the petition or its exhibit list, so I will not represent what prior art was asserted in that proceeding. The POPR-style text retrieved in search quotes the '488 and '679 patents' claim language (lenticular knit structure with differently colored yarns on opposite sides) but appears in a document addressing claim construction generally, not in a decision on the '679.
• Darts-ip records a "first worldwide family litigation" for family 53506602.

8. How to obtain the authoritative citation list (recommended next step)

To produce a defensible per-reference § 102 table, pull the printed front page (Box 56) and the file wrapper:

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) → search 10070679 → open the granted patent PDF → copy the "(56) References Cited — U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS / FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS / OTHER PUBLICATIONS" list. This is the list the user asked for and the only authoritative source for it.
2. USPTO PatentCenter (patentcenter.uspto.gov) → application 14/734,422 → "Documents & Transactions" → the examiner's Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) and any Information Disclosure Statements (SB/08) list every reference cited, with examiner initials.
3. USPTO Global Dossier / Espacenet for the family's foreign search reports (the '679 family members list JP/KR/CN counterparts whose search reports often cite the same art with X/Y categorizations).
4. For the settlement IPR, the PTAB portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01190) will show the petition and exhibits if publicly posted.

If you paste that Box 56 list (or the PTO-892) back here, I will complete the requested mapping — full citation, publication/filing date, one-paragraph disclosure summary, and the specific claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2), with an explicit indication of any element that is missing so you can see where a § 102 challenge would fail and a § 103 combination would be needed instead.

Bottom line (confidence-graded)

• High confidence (verified): identity, numbers, dates, inventors, assignee, family/litigation flags of US 10,070,679 B2; the references cited inside the patent text (items 1–8 above); the fact that Dua/Huffa knit patents and the two 62/057,xxx provisionals are the load-bearing references in the specification.
• Not verified (stated explicitly): the exact examiner-cited Box 56 list; issue dates of items 1–5; whether US 8,839,532's issue date falls before or after 2014-09-30; the granted independent-claim wording; and the prior art asserted in IPR2019-01190. I have not fabricated any of these.

I'll research the claim language and the prior art cited against this patent before building the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,070,679 B2

“Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure” (Nike, Inc.; Meir & Podhajny) — 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Sources, scope, and stated caveats

This analysis is built from (a) the patent document itself (its Background/Summary/Detailed Description, including the references it cites and incorporates by reference), and (b) the prior-art record developed in the inter partes review of this patent, IPR2019‑01190 (PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc.), which the Google Patents family/litigation data shows was filed and terminated by settlement (no final written merits decision on the '679 claims).

Source of record for the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10070679](/patent/US10070679)/en · Pre‑grant pub. US2016/0088894A1: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/34/89/27/8757467bc43f42/US20160088894A1.pdf · IPR docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/[ptab](/ptab)/case/IPR2019-01190 · Petition: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-01190/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._10070679/docs/06-11-2019-Petitioner/Petition-1-Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf

Two honest limitations on this opinion, which you should not paper over:

1. Claim-text discrepancy. The patent's Summary frames three independent-claim aspects (an article of footwear; a knitted component; a method), and the specification's Summary language matches that framing verbatim. However, the IPR2019‑01190 petition lists Element I[a] of the challenged independent claim as “A lenticular knit structure for providing color-shifting properties to a knitted component,” with the further limitations that “the knitted component includes a front side and an opposite-facing back side” and “the lenticular knit structure is disposed on the front side of the knitted component.” I could not independently verify the issued claim set line-by-line in this session. The analysis below therefore addresses the limitations common to all formulations, and flags the front/back-side limitation separately.
2. I could not reproduce Google Patents' examiner "Citations / Prior Art" list in full. The prior art below is drawn from the references the patent itself cites or incorporates by reference plus the art relied on in the IPR. A definitive § 103 opinion needs the actual PTO citation list and the full text of Shindo and Tamm.

Effective filing/priority: Sept. 30, 2014 (Prov. 62/057,264; Prov. 62/057,293) via Ser. No. 14/535,448 (Nov. 7, 2014); the '679 filed June 9, 2015. The AIA applies. Art must therefore predate Sept. 30, 2014.

2. The claimed subject matter

Critically, nothing in the claim requires optics, lenticules, lenses, printing, or any lens-like element. The coined term "lenticular knit structure" is used in the specification as a label for a tubular rib structure — i.e., a raised, two-layer knit tube, with one yarn on one face and a different yarn on the other (see the patent's own description, and US2016/0088894A1 ¶¶ [0051]–[0057], [0069]–[0083]: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/34/89/27/8757467bc43f42/US20160088894A1.pdf). That concession in the specification is the center of gravity of the obviousness case.

3. The prior art available

4. Ground 1 — Shindo + Tamm (+ the knowledge of a POSA): the strongest combination

Teaching/mapping. Shindo and Tamm were selected by Petitioner specifically because they disclose the two-deflection knit structures and the flat-bed knitting techniques needed to form them. In combination with the ordinary skill of a POSA in weft knitting, they teach: (i) a raised knit rib/tube extending away from a base web; (ii) the two opposite faces of that rib; and (iii) feeding multiple yarns so that different faces of the same knit structure are formed from different yarns.

Motivation to combine — the express rationales.

• Same field, same problem: both references are in weft knitting of fabric/articles, and the problem to be solved (producing a three-dimensional knit surface with visually/functionally differentiated faces) is the same. Petitioner's stated rationale language is exactly this: "they are in the same field, they are aimed at solving the same perceived problems in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved was the same" (PTAB record quoting Petitioner's ground; see the IPR materials at ptacts.uspto.gov and the Steszyn Declaration, Ex. 1007: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-01190/PUMA_North_America_Inc._v._NIKE_Inc/docs/06-11-2019-Petitioner/Exhibit-1007-Exhibit_1007.pdf).
• Known technique to improve a similar device (MPEP 2143, Rationale C; KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)): using a different yarn on the two faces of a knit rib is a well-known plating/jacquard technique applied to a known structure, yielding a predictable result.
• Finite number of predictable solutions: the claim's "visual effect changes with viewing angle" is inherent geometry. A rib viewed from one direction presents the yarn on face A; from the opposite direction it presents the yarn on face B. Nothing unpredictable occurs when the two faces carry two different colors.

That last point deserves emphasis because it is where the patent is weakest: the patent does not claim a structure that behaves like a lenticular lens. It claims a raised two-faced knit whose two faces are differently yarned, and then recites the geometric consequence as a limitation. Reciting the inherent consequence of a known structure cannot impart patentability (In re Kratz; Bettcher Indus. line of cases on result-oriented functional language).

5. Ground 2 — Huffa '532 + Dua + the '679's own incorporated '413/'264 disclosure + yarn-selection knowledge

This combination is largely assembled from the patent's own specification and is therefore the most difficult for the patentee to escape:

• Huffa '532 supplies the "lenticular knit structure" itself: two co-extensive knitted layers of unitary knit construction forming a tube, on a footwear upper.
• Dua '762/'011/'299 supply the knitted upper formed of unitary knit construction by flat knitting — including the "unitary knit construction" definitional matter the claim relies on.
• The '679's own incorporated '413/'264 disclosure supplies the webbed areas + tubular rib structures + inlaid tensile elements — and the '679 expressly says the lenticular knit structure "may be in the form of a tubular rib structure" and may be "substantially similar" to those structures. This is an admission that the structure is old; the only asserted novelty is the choice and placement of yarns.
• The '679's own Background supplies the motivation: it complains at length about the cost/waste of "multiple material elements… joined together, usually with stitching or adhesive bonding," and praises knitted components that reduce material elements. A POSA seeking a decorative, color-changing upper would therefore be directly motivated to obtain the aesthetic effect from the knit structure itself — i.e., by knitting the two faces of the known rib with different yarns — rather than adding printed films, laminates, or lenticular lens sheets.

Rationale (MPEP 2143 A + F): combining elements according to known methods (flat-bed knitting of tube layers) with no change in their respective functions; and a design choice — selecting visually contrasting yarns for the two faces of a knit rib — which produces only the predictable result of a face whose appearance changes with the angle from which the rib is viewed. Design/aesthetic changes are obvious absent evidence that the change produces an unexpected result (In re Seid; MPEP 2144.04).

6. Ground 3 — Analogous lenticular printing art as reinforcing evidence

The specification concedes that lenticular printing — "the use of lenses to cause a shift in the visible image or pattern when viewed from different viewing angles" — was known and used "to create simple animations and visual effects for advertising and other purposes." A POSA designing footwear aesthetics (the same problem: angle-dependent visual effects) would look to that known technique and its known principle (different visible image depending on angle), and would be motivated to achieve the same effect in a knitted upper using the knit structure's own two-faced geometry. This is KSR-style analogous-art reasoning: the technique is used to improve a different device for the same purpose and would improve the knit upper in the same way.

7. Dependent claims

8. What the patentee will argue (and how strong it is)

• "No reference teaches or suggests lenticular color-shifting in a knit." Weak on the claim as written, because the claim recites no optical element or lens; the label does not import structure. If, however, the patentee successfully construes "lenticular knit structure" to require a specific curved-lens-like geometry, the case gets harder and the claim-construction record matters a great deal.
• Teaching away / different purpose. Huffa '532's purpose is cushioning, not aesthetics. Under KSR and MPEP 2145, a difference in a reference's stated purpose is generally not teaching away unless it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the modification. Huffa's tubes are not disparaged for decorative use.
• Secondary considerations. None is established on this record. Note for completeness that no merits decision exists in IPR2019‑01190 — the PTAB case was terminated by settlement — so neither the PTAB's institution decision nor any final written decision binds a later challenge. This also means there is no adjudicated nexus between any commercial-success evidence and the '679 claims.
• § 101 overlay. The parallel district court action (Nike v. Puma, D. Mass.) shows the patents were challenged as abstract, with the court permitting the validity/ineligibility challenge to proceed on the pleadings; § 101 is a separate attack that does not rescue the claims from § 103.

9. Bottom line

On this record, each independent-claim formulation of the '679 patent is vulnerable to § 103, with the strongest attacks being:

1. Shindo + Tamm (as actually run by Petitioner in the IPR), with the motivation that they are in the same field, address the same problem, use the same technique, and produce a predictable result; and
2. Huffa '532 (tubular, unitary-knit-construction structure) + Dua (knitted upper of unitary knit construction) + the '413/'264 rib/web disclosure (incorporated into the '679 by reference) + knowledge of plating/color jacquard, motivated by the '679's own stated need to eliminate joined material elements while still obtaining decorative effects — yielding the predictable, geometric result that a rib with differently yarned faces presents a different color at a different viewing angle.

The claimed "first visual effect at a first viewing angle / second visual effect at a second viewing angle" is the inherent consequence of the rib's two-faced geometry with differently colored yarns; the "lenticular knit structure" is, on the specification's own terms, a known tubular rib structure. That combination of an admitted old structure with a routine yarn-selection design choice is the classic § 103 fact pattern.

Confidence statement: I am highly confident about the specification's own admissions (tubular rib = "lenticular knit structure"; rib structures and inlaid tensile elements incorporated from 62/057,264 / 14/535,413; lenticular printing acknowledged as prior technique) and about the identity of the references cited in the patent. I am not confident about the exact wording of the issued independent claim(s) or about the substantive teachings of Shindo and Tamm, which I could not retrieve in full here. Before filing or relying on this analysis, obtain (i) the certified copy of the '679 claims, (ii) the full text/translation of WO 2005/094080 (Shindo) and Tamm, and (iii) the complete PTO citation list for the '679 — a fuller Ground 1 mapping depends on them.