US 6973746

I'll search for the specific patent number and any litigation/docket information.

Let me check specifically for any 2026 Federal Circuit or district court activity involving this patent.

Summary of U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746

Important caveat up front: I ran targeted searches for this specific number across Google Patents/Patents PDFs, PTAB (IPR2019‑01043), the D. Mass. docket, and general 2026 litigation/docket sources. I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion involving U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746. A search for "6973746" + CAFC/2026 returned unrelated results (e.g., the Spero v. Mercedes‑Benz appeals, 2025‑1306/2025‑1470) and an unrelated OSTI record with the internal ID 6973746. I cannot rule out a non‑indexed or very recent filing, but I have no authoritative 2026 appellate activity to report.

Bibliographic data (all IDs read literally, not auto‑corrected)

Abstract (verbatim substance)

A soccer shoe includes an upper and a cleat assembly coupled to the upper. The cleat assembly includes a medial support bar on the medial side and a lateral support bar on the lateral side. A portion of the cleat assembly near a midfoot section of the medial support bar is stiffer than a portion near a midfoot section of the lateral support bar. The medial support bar extends approximately from the rear of the calcaneous to approximately the head of the first metatarsal; the lateral support bar extends approximately from the rear of the calcaneous to approximately the head of the fifth metatarsal. The cleat assembly is bonded to a cushioning midsole formed from heated and compressed EVA foam ("Phylon"); the upper lacks a full‑length lasting board and is bonded directly to the midsole; and a lining covers a padded collar and extends inside the foot‑receiving region, with the heel area substantially free of discontinuities.

Independent claims — plain‑language overview

Only one claim is independent: claim 1. Every other claim (2–30) is a dependent claim written as "The article of footwear of claim X…," forming nested chains that all trace back to claim 1. This is worth flagging — the specification and abstract describe multiple distinct aspects (cleat assembly stiffness asymmetry, midsole/EVA construction, Strobel sock, padded‑collar lining), but all of those aspects are captured as dependent features rather than separate independent claims.

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) — An article of footwear with:

1. an upper; and
2. a cleat assembly coupled to the upper, the cleat assembly including:
   • a base having medial and lateral sides,
   • a plurality of downwardly extending ground‑engaging members (cleats/studs),
   • a medial support bar on the medial side,
   • a lateral support bar on the lateral side,
   • a lateral stiffened section in the region of the cleat assembly corresponding to the lateral bar's midfoot portion, and
   • a medial stiffened section in the region corresponding to the medial bar's midfoot portion,
   • wherein the medial stiffened section is stiffer than the lateral stiffened section.

In plain terms: the claimed invention is an asymmetric, independently supported cleat plate for a soccer shoe whose medial (inner) midfoot region is deliberately stiffer than the lateral (outer) midfoot region — a pronation‑control geometry.

Representative dependent‑claim clusters (all depend ultimately on claim 1):

• Structure/fabrication (2–8): support bars formed separately from and attached to the base; a connecting matrix overlaying the base with the bars disposed between matrix and base; thicker matrix over the medial stiffened section; a thicker medial bar midfoot section; bars outwardly visible via a clear/translucent matrix.
• Anatomical placement (9–20): the calcaneous‑to‑first‑metatarsal (medial) and calcaneous‑to‑fifth‑metatarsal (lateral) extents; bars stiffer than the base; a supplemental stiffening element (claim 12: nickel‑titanium alloy/nitinol strip); midfoot open region; a cross‑sole flexure region with a flexible medial extension and phalangeal support; integral studs protruding through the bars; bars free of integral connecting members; TPU or glass‑fiber‑reinforced plastic bars.
• Midsole/upper construction (21–26): cushioning midsole bonded to the base with the upper lacking a full‑length lasting board and bonded directly to the midsole; closed‑cell compressed foam; heated and compressed EVA foam (claim 24); an air cushion with 8–10 mm combined thickness and ~2–3 mm toe thickness; a peripherally stitched Strobel sock; and the padded‑collar/continuous‑lining heel feature.
• Claims 27–30 re‑recite the medial‑thicker, supplemental‑stiffener, flexure‑region, and integral‑stud features within the midsole sub‑chain.

Litigation and post‑grant proceedings (found on the record)

1. Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:18‑cv‑10876‑LTS (Judge Leo T. Sorokin). Filed May 3, 2018; terminated/dismissed January 13, 2020. U.S. 6,973,746 was one of seven asserted patents (alongside 7,401,420; 7,637,032; 8,266,749; 9,078,488; 9,314,065; 9,375,046). Accused products included Puma evoSPEED SL, FUTURE Netfit FG/AG, and ONE 18.1 Syn FG footwear. Per a complaint‑analysis source, claims 1, 5, and 6 of the '746 patent were asserted.
2. PUMA North America, Inc. v. Auger et al, PTAB IPR2019‑01043 (Patent 6,973,746, App. 10/626,841, Tech Center 3700). Petition filed May 3, 2019; institution decision October 31, 2019; terminated – settled December 3, 2019. Petitioner counsel: Vincent Rubino; Patent Owner counsel: Christopher Renk. (Google Patents flags this IPR as "Settlement.")
3. Global litigation flag on the family (Darts‑ip, family ID 34080499) — consistent with the Massachusetts action above.
4. No 2026 CAFC docket identified (see caveat above).

Uncertainty notes

• I did not independently verify post‑2023 maintenance‑fee status via USPTO Patent Center; the "Expired – Lifetime / expires 2023‑11‑11" line on Google Patents is consistent with a 20‑year term from July 25, 2003 plus 109 days of PTA, and Google Patents itself notes its legal‑status data is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
• Do not treat "US6973746" as interchangeable with the unrelated JP6973746B2 (a 2021 Japanese "Matching program, matching method and matching device" patent) or the OSTI record ID 6973746 (a dewaxing process); these are distinct identifiers that appear in the same search results.
• The pre‑grant publication is listed as US 2005/0016029 A1, while the continuation's publication is US 2006/0064905 A1; these are different documents in the same family and should not be conflated.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6973746 across patent litigation sources.

Let me gather more detail on the specific cases identified and check for any additional litigation.

Let me do a final check for any other cases (e.g., Adidas, Skechers, or other districts) involving this patent.

Known Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746

Patent identification (as literally stated): U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746 B2, "Soccer shoe having independently supported lateral and medial sides," inventors Perry W. Auger, Peter A. Hudson, and Erez Morag; assignee Nike, Inc. (original assignee Nike Inc.); filed July 25, 2003; granted December 13, 2005; adjusted expiration November 11, 2023 (status: Expired – Lifetime). Related continuation: U.S. Patent No. 7,143,530 (application US11/260,479).

Based on searches across patent-litigation sources (Google Patents litigation links to Unified Patents and Darts‑ip, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, PTAB records, and reporting), two proceedings are known — one district court case and one inter partes review — both involving Nike and PUMA and both terminating in early 2020. I found no other asserted lawsuits (e.g., no separate Adidas or Skechers case asserting the '746 patent).

1. District Court infringement action

Scope: The '746 patent was one of seven patents asserted in the original complaint, alongside U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,401,420; 7,637,032; 8,266,749; 9,314,065; 9,375,046; and 9,078,488 (with later additions including 10,051,917 and 10,070,679). The '746 patent was specifically grouped with Nike's "cleat assembly" technology. Accused products included the evoSPEED SL, FUTURE Netfit FG/AG, and ONE 18.1 Syn FG footwear.

Procedural history of note:

• PUMA's motion to dismiss was denied; PUMA's motion to compel more detailed infringement contentions was denied; Nike's motion to compel discovery was granted.
• The court issued a claim construction order (Doc. 111, filed Oct. 24, 2019). For the '746 patent, the disputed term was "medial stiffened section being stiffer than the lateral stiffened section" (claim 1). The parties ultimately agreed to construe it as "medial stiffened section being less easily bent than the lateral stiffened section."
• PUMA filed an unsuccessful motion to stay the litigation pending the IPR (see below).

Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--18-cv-10876/Nike_Inc_v._PUMA_North_America_Inc/ ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Massachusetts%20District%20Court/case/1%3A18-cv-10876 ; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.[198400](/patent/198400)/gov.uscourts.mad.198400.111.0.pdf

2. Inter Partes Review (PTAB)

Details: Petitioner and Patent Owner entered a confidential written settlement agreement resolving the IPR (filed as confidential Exhibit 1009), and jointly moved to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. The Board had not decided the merits. Counsels of record: Vincent Rubino (Petitioner), Christopher Renk (Patent Owner).

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01043 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2019-01043 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-01043/

Summary and caveats

• Only two proceedings involving the '746 patent were identified: Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS (D. Mass., filed May 3, 2018; terminated Jan. 13, 2020) and PUMA North America, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2019-01043 (PTAB, petition filed May 3, 2019; terminated-settled Dec. 3, 2019). The IPR filing date is one year to the day after the complaint — consistent with the § 315(b) one-year bar.
• The Darts‑ip entry linked on the patent page ("First worldwide family litigation filed," family ID 34080499) corresponds to this same Massachusetts case. See https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=34080499
• No appellate (CAFC) decision on the '746 patent was found; both matters ended before merits rulings.
• I could not locate a public, non-confidential settlement agreement or a stated dismissal-with-prejudice order for the district court case. The Docket Alarm record shows termination on January 13, 2020 but I did not independently verify the precise dismissal terms. This is a point you should confirm against PACER if it matters.
• Reasonable diligence was applied, but litigation databases are not exhaustive. If you need a negative-infringement or freedom-to-operate clearance opinion, a full PACER/litigation-search confirm is warranted rather than relying solely on the above.

I'll start by checking the structured PTAB data block against what the patent record itself shows — and there's a discrepancy worth resolving.

Confirmed — the canonical ODP block is wrong here. Let me pin down the details.

Now let me check for any other proceedings on the '746 patent, and confirm the appeal posture.

⚠️ Data-integrity flag before anything else

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt is wrong. It states the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 6,973,746. There is one, and it is well documented in PTAB's own paper record and multiple third-party dockets:

• IPR2019-01043, PUMA North America, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. — filed 2019-05-03, instituted 2019-10-31, terminated on settlement 2019-12-03.

Two likely explanations: (a) ODP's AIA trial dataset omits proceedings that terminated pre-FWD, or (b) the ingest is simply incomplete. Either way, do not rely on the "no PTAB activity" default here. Note also that Google Patents renders the petitioner field on this case as "Unified Patents PTAB Data" — that is a data-provider attribution artifact, not the petitioner. Unified Patents is not in this chain; the petitioner was PUMA North America, a direct Nike competitor. Anyone reading only the Google Patents page will mis-identify the petitioner.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,973,746: 1. Breakdown: 0 invalidated, 0 sustained, 0 active, 1 settled (instituted, then terminated pre-FWD), 0 institution denials.

Bottom line: the patent is entirely untested at the PTAB on the merits — no Final Written Decision has ever issued, so no claim of the '746 patent has been canceled or confirmed. But "untested" is not the same as "hardened." The Board did institute IPR2019-01043 on PUMA's Norton/Kilgore grounds, which means those grounds cleared the § 314(a) reasonable-likelihood threshold. For a defendant today, the practical significance is that a Board-vetted invalidity theory exists on the public record and is unencumbered by estoppel or adverse final judgment — it just died procedurally when the parties settled the underlying Massachusetts case. Add that the patent expired 2023-11-11 (per the Google Patents legal-status data), and the defensive posture is dominated by the expiration date, not by PTAB outcomes.

IPR2019-01043 — PUMA North America, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2019-05-03 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition, Paper 3, 2019-05-09; Erratum, Paper 4, 2019-05-13)
• Status: Terminated – Settled (verbatim from the PTAB docket / IP Verse). Plain English: the Board granted institution, the parties settled five weeks later, and the Board terminated before any merits decision. There is no Final Written Decision. Google Patents' own entry records this as "PTAB case IPR2019-01043 filed (Settlement)."
• Judge panel: Not verified. I did not retrieve the face of the institution decision or termination decision, so I cannot name the Administrative Patent Judges without fabricating. The paper numbers are Papers 8 (Institution), 9 (Scheduling Order), 10 (Joint Motion to Dismiss), 12 (Motion to Keep Confidential and Separate), 13 (Termination Decision). Panel membership should be pulled from the face of Paper 8 at PTAB E2E (search IPR2019-01043).
• Petition grounds (verified from Patent Owner's expert declaration, Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 2–5):
  • Ground 1 — § 102 anticipation: claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 over Norton, U.S. Patent No. 4,574,498.
  • Ground 2 — § 103 obviousness: claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17 over Norton in view of Kilgore, U.S. Patent No. 5,046,267.
  • No § 112 grounds were raised.
  • Notable: Norton (US 4,574,498, New Balance "Sole for athletic shoe") was already of record in the '746 prosecution — it appears in the '746 patent's own citations list. PUMA repurposed an examiner-cited reference as its primary anticipation vehicle.
• Institution decision: Instituted, 2019-10-31 (Paper 8, Decision Granting Institution; Scheduling Order issued the same day, Paper 9). IP Verse records the institution decision date as 2019-10-31, consistent with the § 314(b) six-month deadline from the 2019-05-03 filing. Nike had filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Ex. 2001, declaration of Dr. Kim B. Blair, Ph.D., dated 2019-08-09) arguing the challenged claims were neither anticipated by Norton nor obvious over Norton + Kilgore, including a claim-construction argument directed at the limitation "the medial stiffened section being stiffer than the lateral stiffened section." I have not read the text of Paper 8 and will not characterize the Board's reasoning beyond this: institution means the Board found a reasonable likelihood that PUMA would prevail on at least one challenged claim. The full institution reasoning is not in the material I retrieved.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. Because no FWD exists, no claim of US 6,973,746 was canceled, and no claim was held patentable, in IPR2019-01043. Any statement to the contrary — in either direction — would be false. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17 were challenged; all 30 claims remain legally intact and, for the eight challenged claims, remain unadjudicated on the merits by the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: The parties informed the Board of settlement by email on 2019-11-26; the Board authorized a joint motion on 2019-11-27; the Joint Motion to Dismiss the Petition and Terminate the Proceeding was filed 2019-12-02 (Paper 10) under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, expressly noting the Board "has not yet decided the merits of the proceeding." A written confidential settlement agreement was filed as Exhibit 1009 with a request to have it treated as confidential business information under § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), accessible to "Parties and Board Only." A separate motion to keep the agreement confidential and separate was filed (Paper 12). Termination Decision issued 2019-12-03 (Paper 13). The settlement terms are confidential and not public — do not assume the settlement included any license, royalty, or covenant with terms inferable from the docket. The only public term is that the parallel litigation was dismissed with prejudice (below).
• Appeal: None. With no FWD, there was no appealable PTAB decision, no Federal Circuit docket, and no CAFC opinion. Nothing to retrieve from CourtListener.
• Defensive value: The Board's institution is the genuinely useful artifact — it means Norton alone (§ 102) and Norton + Kilgore (§ 103) were sufficient to get PUMA past § 314(a) on claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17. A defendant today can pull PUMA's Petition, Dr. Stefanyshyn's declaration, and the Board's Paper 8 off the public docket and reuse them as a ready-made starting point. Conversely, because the case settled pre-FWD, no estoppel attached (see below), and Nike never had to defend these claims on the merits in a trial that reached judgment.

Parallel district court proceeding (context for the settlement)

• Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin. Filed 2018-05-03; terminated 2020-01-13, dismissed with prejudice by stipulation pursuant to the settlement agreement. (Docket Alarm)
• Nike asserted the '746 patent against claims 1, 5, and 6, targeting PUMA's evoSPEED SL and ONE 18.1 Syn FG footwear.
• PUMA moved to stay pending IPR on 2019-05-16; Nike opposed. The stay motion was pending when the cases settled.
• PUMA filed IPRs against six other Nike patents from the same suit — the joint motion identifies IPR2019-01059 ('046 patent) and IPR2019-01060 ('488 patent) among them, plus one against the '065 patent. Nike's opposition brief noted PUMA was already time-barred under § 315(b) as to the '420, '032, and '749 patents. This is the classic multi-patent, multi-IPR assertion-then-settle pattern, not a single-patent grudge.

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 6,973,746 has been canceled, and no claim has been sustained. All 30 claims are UNTESTED on the merits before the PTAB. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 are the only ones ever challenged, and the challenge evaporated at settlement. Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18–30 have never been the subject of an AIA petition at all. If a demand letter cites claims 1, 5, and 6 — the claims Nike actually asserted against PUMA — you cannot point to a PTAB cancellation. You can point to the fact that those exact claims were challenged and instituted, then settled. Practically, the strongest fact on the file is not a PTAB holding: the patent expired 2023-11-11.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel did not attach. Estoppel flows from a final written decision; IPR2019-01043 was terminated under § 317(a) after institution but before any merits ruling, so PUMA (and its privies) are not estopped as to Norton, Kilgore, or anything they raised or reasonably could have raised. Because the district court case was dismissed with prejudice, that point is moot as to PUMA — but it is highly relevant to you: Norton (US 4,574,498) and Kilgore (US 5,046,267), alone and in combination, are fully available § 102/§ 103 grounds with no estoppel shadow, no adverse FWD, and no IPR record that Nike successfully rebutted. Note the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent — a prior dismissed action against a different party does not bar your petition, but if you are a privy of PUMA or were previously served, calculate that date carefully.

Pattern signals. One petitioner (PUMA North America — a competitor, not a defensive aggregator; disregard the "Unified Patents" label on the Google Patents page), one petition on this patent, parallel to six others on sibling Nike patents. Nike did not pursue any PTAB appeal on this patent — there was nothing to appeal — and the patent owner has never had to defend these claims through an FWD. There is no serial-petitioner campaign against the '746 patent, and the patent's 2023 expiration makes one unlikely now. Also relevant to portfolio risk: the '746 disclosure has a continuation, US 7,143,530 B2 (filed 2005-10-28), plus EP 1 648 253 B1 and CN 100438790 C family members — check those separately before concluding the family is quiet.

Recommended next steps

1. Correct the internal record. Update your PTAB watchlist to reflect IPR2019-01043 (PUMA v. Nike), instituted 2019-10-31, terminated-settled 2019-12-03, no FWD, no appeal. Do not let the ODP gap propagate into a clearance or invalidity opinion.
2. No FWD to link, and no CAFC opinion. Because no Final Written Decision issued, there is no disposition to quote and no CourtListener appellate docket. Cite instead: the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Terminate (Paper 10, 2019-12-02, stating the Board "has not yet decided the merits of the proceeding") and the Termination Decision (Paper 13, 2019-12-03). Both are retrievable via Docket Alarm and PTAB E2E.
3. Mine the instituted petition. Pull Paper 8 (Institution Decision), PUMA's Petition, and the Stefanyshyn declaration. Board-instituted grounds are the single highest-value input to your own § 102/§ 103 theory, and here they come with zero estoppel baggage.
4. No trial-stage milestones to track. IPR2019-01043 is closed; there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory one-year FWD clock running on this patent. There is nothing active to monitor.
5. Lead with the expiration date. With a 2023-11-11 expiration and an expired-lifetime status, infringement exposure for any post-expiration conduct is a live question you should pin down immediately — that analysis will likely matter more than any invalidity theory.
6. If you need PUMA's footing confirmed, the settlement agreement (Ex. 1009) is confidential and Board-only under § 317(b); its terms are not obtainable, and you should not infer a license to third parties from it.

Confidence notes: Filing date, challenged claims, grounds, institution date, termination date, and termination-on-settlement are high confidence (multiple corroborating sources). The panel composition and the Board's institution reasoning are unverified — I deliberately did not supply names or reasoning I could not source. Termination was recorded by IP Verse as "Terminated-Settled" and by Google Patents as "(Settlement)," both consistent with the public joint motion.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6,973,746, starting with the USPTO assignment data and cross-referencing sources.

Let me dig into the Google Patents legal events and assignment records more specifically.

I found relevant assignment-related data. Let me verify the specifics, including the inventorship correction and any post-issuance assignments.

Assignment / Ownership Reconstruction — U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746

Data-retrieval caveat (read first): I was unable to pull the USPTO Assignment Center record itself within this session — the live assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov query and any reel/frame PDFs did not return to me before my search budget was exhausted. Everything below is reconstructed from (a) the authoritative Google Patents full-text record for US 6,973,746 (which mirrors the assignment/legal-events data), and (b) a PTAB exhibit filed by the petitioner in IPR2019-01043. Reel/frame numbers, execution dates, and the recording correspondent are therefore NOT available to me and I will not invent them. You should confirm each entry at the Assignment Center search page below before relying on it:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "6973746" or application 10/626,841)
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Inventors

Employer is determinable from two independent facts: (1) all three residences are in the Portland/Beaverton, Oregon metro (Nike world headquarters), and (2) all three assigned their rights to Nike, Inc. per the recorded assignment (see timeline).

Unusual-pattern check — no fire-sale precursor. All three inventors remained Nike inventors well after filing: Auger and Morag are named co-inventors on US 8,616,892 ("Training system for an article of footwear with a traction system," filed June 28, 2010, assignee Nike, Inc.), which is seven years post-filing and five years post-issuance. There is no evidence of the "all inventors depart the assignee within 12 months of filing" pattern.

Anomaly worth flagging (do not over-read it). The Google Patents reassignment block for this patent lists a second assignment recorded 2005-12-08 whose named assignor is Timm A. Flintoff — a person who is not a named inventor on the issued patent. A petitioner exhibit in IPR2019-01043 (Exhibit 1003) contains a line referring to a Dec. 8, 2005 inventorship paper adding Timm Flintoff, but the Exhibit 1001 front page of US 6,973,746 (granted 2005-12-13) names only Auger, Hudson, and Morag, and the printed patent's (75) field is unchanged. Conclusion: the Flintoff assignment appears to be either (i) mis-associated on the Google Patents record with a sibling Nike application, or (ii) a record belonging to the continuation US 11/260,479. It is not supported as a change to this patent's inventorship by the authoritative patent text. Confirm against the Assignment Center before citing it.

Original assignee

Nike, Inc., One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR (public company, NYSE: NKE). Original assignee named on the issued patent; a second Nike assignment row appears as "NIKE, INC." (see timeline).

• Primary line of business: athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment.
• Ships a product embodying the claims: yes — Nike commercializes cleated soccer footwear built on independently supported / asymmetrically stiffened cleat plates (e.g., Mercurial, Phantom, Tiempo cleated models). This is the product category the '746 patent describes, and it is the same category Nike accused PUMA of copying (evoSPEED SL, FUTURE Netfit, ONE 18.1).
• Current status: operating; no bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition. Nike currently stands as assignee on the patent record (Google Patents "Current Assignee: Nike Inc"), and the patent expired 2023-11-11 (20-year term from 2003-07-25 plus 109 days PTA). No reissue or post-expiry transfer appears on the record.
• Related continuation: US 11/260,479 → US 7,143,530 B2 (also Nike, Inc.).

Assignment timeline

Recorded conveyances surfaced on the authoritative citation for this patent (Google Patents legal-events / reassignment block). Reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent were not retrievable in this session and are left marked "not obtained."

• Execution date not obtained / recorded 2004-05-19 — Reel not obtained/Frame not obtained

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: HUDSON, PETER A.; AUGER, PERRY W.; MORAG, EREZ
  • Assignee: NIKE, INC. (Beaverton, OR)
  • Correspondent: not obtained (Assignment Center data not retrieved — cannot assess recurrence)
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-employer assignment vesting title in Nike; the ordinary operating-company capture of employee invention rights.

• Execution date not obtained / recorded 2005-12-08 — Reel not obtained/Frame not obtained

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: FLINTOFF, TIMM A. (address of record in the IPR exhibit reads "28th Floor, 447 Section 3, Web Hein Road, Taiwan")
  • Assignee: NIKE, INC.
  • Correspondent: not obtained
  • Context: Inventor-to-employer assignment by an individual who is not a named inventor on the '746 patent; most consistent with a record tied to a sibling/continuation Nike application rather than a change in this patent's ownership. Title nonetheless remains with Nike either way.

That is the entirety of the assignment history visible on the patent record. There is no subsequent conveyance — no transfer to any IP-holding LLC, no security agreement, no merger, no change of name, and no license record. The chain begins and ends with Nike, Inc. (If the Assignment Center returns additional rows that I could not retrieve, that is the one thing that would change this conclusion.)

Note on the "no later assignment" finding: a complete absence of post-issuance transfers is itself the signal here — it means the original operating-company assignee retained ownership for the patent's full life, which is the opposite of the NPE acquisition pattern.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6973746
    2003 : Application filed by Auger Hudson Morag
    2004 : Inventors assign rights to Nike Inc
    2005 : Patent issued to Nike Inc
         : Flintoff assignment recorded
         : Continuation US 11260479 filed
    2018 : Nike sues PUMA in D Mass
    2019 : PUMA petitions for IPR2019-01043
    2020 : District case and IPR both resolved
    2023 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Aggravating/mitigating context: The two identified adversarial proceedings — the 2018 Massachusetts infringement suit and PUMA's IPR2019-01043 (petition 2019-05-03; instituted 2019-10-31; terminated-settled 2019-12-03 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a)) — were litigation and post-grant review between two operating footwear competitors, not NPE activity.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Nike, Inc. — the original and only assignee on the record (inventor assignment recorded 2004-05-19) — is an operating manufacturer that sells cleated soccer footwear embodying the '746 claims, retained the patent continuously through its 2023-11-11 expiration, and asserted it in its own name against a direct competitor in Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS (D. Mass., filed 2018-05-03), while defending it as Patent Owner in IPR2019-01043. None of the eight NPE/privateering/fire-sale signals is present, and the only anomaly — a 2005-12-08 assignment row naming non-inventor Timm A. Flintoff — is most consistent with a sibling-application record rather than a change in ownership, since title remained with Nike throughout.

Caveats: (1) I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondent from the Assignment Center; please verify the two rows above at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ before citing them. (2) The Flintoff row is uncorroborated by the issued patent's inventor field and should be treated as unresolved. (3) No conflicting statement appears in the previously generated summary/litigation sections; the only addition here is the Flintoff anomaly and the negative post-issuance assignment finding.

I'll verify the specific patent and its cited prior art against USPTO and other authoritative sources.

US 6,973,746 — Prior-Art Analysis

1. Confirmation of the target patent

USPTO and Google Patents confirm the identifier exactly as given:

• US 6,973,746 B2 — "Soccer shoe having independently supported lateral and medial sides"
• Application 10/626,841; filed July 25, 2003; granted December 13, 2005
• Inventors: Perry W. Auger, Peter A. Hudson, Erez Morag; Assignee: Nike, Inc.
• 30 claims, claim 1 the only independent claim
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6973746/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6973746](/patent/6973746)

I did not return or substitute results for any similar number. Note a strict-identifier caution: the unrelated JP 6973746 B2 (a 2021 matching-program patent) and an OSTI record ID "6973746" are distinct documents and are excluded here.

2. Legal framework (important for the § 102 question)

The application was filed July 25, 2003 — before the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions took effect (March 16, 2013). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 therefore governs. Practically:

• § 102(a): reference must predate the applicant's invention (in practice, its publication/issue date must precede the invention date).
• § 102(b): a printed publication or patent must date more than one year before July 25, 2003 — i.e., before July 25, 2002.
• § 102(e): a U.S. patent granted on an application filed by another before the applicant's invention can be applied as of its U.S. filing date.

Critical point on "anticipation": § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim, arranged as in the claim. As shown below, the cited references are individually directed to pieces of the '746 disclosure (a stiffener here, an asymmetric sole there) and do not disclose the full claim 1 combination — which is why the examiner used them in obviousness (§ 103) rejections rather than anticipation, and why the claims issued. My § 102 comments below therefore identify which claim elements a reference touches and flag the minority of narrow dependent claims that a reference could arguably meet alone.

3. Examiner-cited references (from the face of the patent / Google Patents "Patent Citations")

(Two citation tables appear on the Google Patents page — one listing 33 items and one listing 34, differing by the addition of US 5,416,986. Both are reported literally below.)

3a. The most relevant references (closest to claim 1's core)

US 6,108,943 A — Nike, Inc. — "Article of footwear having medial and lateral sides with differing characteristics"

• Filed 1998‑01‑30; granted 2000‑08‑29. (Verified.) https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6108943A](/patent/US6108943A)/en
• Description: A tennis shoe built with asymmetric lateral and medial halves; the medial side is made more flexible, the lateral side more stable/supportive, with different midsole hardness values on the medial vs. lateral sides and differing upper materials/thicknesses.
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest cited art to the claim 1 asymmetry concept — it teaches deliberately different mechanical properties on the medial vs. lateral sides. However, it is a non-cleated tennis shoe; it does not disclose medial and lateral support bars, a base with ground-engaging members, or a medial stiffened section (bar midfoot) stiffer than a lateral stiffened section. It therefore does not anticipate claim 1; its likely role was to support an obviousness rejection of the asymmetry idea. It is potentially more directly relevant to dependent claims reciting a "stiffer medial bar" (claims 5, 27) and to the general medial/lateral-difference genus.

US 6,199,303 B1 — adidas International B.V. (Luthi et al.) — "Shoe with stability element"

• Priority 1999‑02‑05 (DE 199 04 744); filed US 1999‑04‑06; granted 2001‑03‑13. (Verified; this reference also appears as Patent Owner's Exhibit 2013 in IPR2019‑01043.) https://patents.google.com/patent/US6199303
• Description: A sole with a stability element that extends from the rearfoot into the forefoot, controlling forefoot rotation relative to the rearfoot; can run substantially along the medial side to reduce pronation (or the lateral side to reduce supination), with defined bending strengths.
• § 102 relevance: Directly relevant to the pronation-control purpose recited in the specification and to a medial, forefoot-extending stiffening element (claim 9's medial bar extent and claim 11's supplemental stiffener). But it is a rearfoot/forefoot stability bar, not a cleated cleat-assembly support bar with a lateral counterpart, and it does not disclose the medial-stiffer-than-lateral bar asymmetry of claim 1. Not an anticipatory reference for claim 1.

US 6,498,235 B2 — adidas International B.V. — "Cleated footwear"

• Filed 1999‑12‑06; granted 2002‑12‑31. (Verified.) https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6499235](/patent/6499235)
• Description: A cleated shoe with a forefoot plate (optionally extending into the midfoot on the lateral side) and a heel plate; alloy cleats; plate materials including TPU, Pebax, Hytrel, optionally glass- or carbon-reinforced.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to the cleat assembly / base-plate structure and to bar material claims (claims 19, 20: TPU or glass-fiber-reinforced plastic). Does not disclose medial/lateral support bars or the stiffness asymmetry → no anticipation of claim 1; possible § 103 combination material.

US 4,316,334 A — Helen M. Hunt — "Athletic shoe including stiffening means for supporting the rear portion of the first metatarsal bone"

• Filed 1980‑03‑27; granted 1982‑02‑23. (Verified.) https://patents.google.com/patent/US4316334
• Description: A running shoe whose sole is moderately compressible on the lateral side and stiffer under the medial arch to resist inward (pronation) rotation; wide under the first metatarsal with a medial shank stiffener and medial cleat.
• § 102 relevance: This is the decade-old conceptual ancestor of the '746 idea — medial stiffer than lateral, to control pronation. It is therefore potentially the most conceptually relevant reference to the core of claim 1 and to claims 5, 9, 10, 27. It does not, however, disclose the claimed cleat assembly with separate medial/lateral support bars each having a midfoot stiffened section; the Hunt medial stiffener is a shank/insert in a running shoe, not a bar in a cleat-assembly matrix. No anticipation of claim 1; strong § 103 candidate.

US 6,167,640 B1 — adidas International B.V. — "Athletic shoe, in particular soccer shoe"

• Filed 1997‑01‑21; granted 2001‑01‑02.
• Description (per title/classification): a soccer-specific athletic shoe construction (this reference predates the July 2002 § 102(b) bar).
• § 102 relevance: Relevant as soccer-shoe background art. I did not retrieve its full text within the tool budget, so I cannot assert an element-by-element § 102 match; flag as unverified.

US 5,452,526 A — Trisport Limited — "Footwear having an outsole stiffener"

• Priority 1989‑12‑15; granted 1995‑09‑26.
• Description: an outsole stiffener element for footwear.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to claims reciting a stiffened section/plate (claims 1, 10, 17). No teaching of the medial-vs-lateral bar asymmetry → no claim 1 anticipation.

US 5,461,801 A — Graeme Anderton — "Cleated athletic shoe with crisscross arch reinforcement"

• Filed 1993‑08‑18; granted 1995‑10‑31.
• Description: a cleated athletic shoe with crisscross arch reinforcement — a reinforced cleat-plate/arch structure.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to the cleated base + reinforcement structure and to the "bars stiffer than the base" concept (claims 10, 17, 18). Does not disclose separate medial/lateral support bars with the claimed relative stiffness. No claim 1 anticipation.

3b. Other examiner-cited references (lower individual relevance)

Design patents cited (ornamental only; cannot anticipate a utility claim): US D272,442 (International Systcoms — "Telephone handset"); US D278,760 (New Balance — outsole); US D290,903 (Asics — shoe sole); US D295,231 (Genesco — baseball shoe sole); US D387,892 (Antoine Briant — cleated shoe sole); US D393,146 (Valsport — shoe sole); US D421,833 (Nike — outsole).

Flag (do not auto-correct): the citation table contains US 8,018,891 B2 (2007‑06‑13, Juniper Networks, "Automatic configuration of virtual network switches"). That document postdates the '746 patent and is unrelated to footwear — it reads as a data artifact on the Google Patents page rather than true prior art. Per the strict-identifier rule I report it as listed, not corrected.

3c. References cited in the "Family Cites Families" list (also of record)

USD272772 (Mizuno — cleated shoe sole); US 4,638,576 (Converse — external counter + cushion); DE 3,703,858 A1 (adidas — "shoe base for sports shoes"); US 5,896,608 (Whatley — footwear lasting component); US 5,782,014 (K‑Swiss — spring-cushioned midsole); US 6,615,512 (Sink — spikeless golf shoe bi-directional sole); US 6,018,891 (Rockport — shoe construction); JP 4076704 B2 (Mizuno — sole structure of sports shoes); EP 1,294,247 B1 (Puma — midsole/insertable sole); US 6,449,879 B1 (Nike — sports shoe with integral tongue and lacing system); US 2003/0029060 A1 (Hockerson — "Cleat"). Individually these are background/sub-system art; none discloses the claim 1 combination. (Compare claim 9: DE 3,703,858 and US 5,896,608 are the kind of construction art that could be combined under § 103.)

4. Non-patent literature cited

1. "Air Jordan 15 Basketball Shoes" — reviewboard.com; publication date unknown but on or prior to June 4, 2003. (Printed-publication art under § 102(a)/(b) depending on actual date.)
2. "Catch Me If You Can" — kicksology.net (review of the Nike Zoom Ultraflight); on or prior to June 4, 2003.
3. International Search Report (PCT/US2004/018929) and Written Opinion of the ISA — these are the search/opinion documents for this very family, not third-party prior art.

Because items 1–2 are dated only "on or prior to June 4, 2003," they fall less than one year before the July 25, 2003 filing, so they can only be § 102(a) prior art (not § 102(b) bars) and only if they predate the invention; they are product-review background on unrelated Nike basketball/running shoes.

5. Which references are most relevant, and a candid § 102 conclusion

Ranked by conceptual proximity to claim 1:

1. US 4,316,334 (Hunt) — the clearest antecedent teaching of "medial stiffer than lateral to control pronation" (touches claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 27).
2. US 6,108,943 (Nike) — the clearest antecedent of asymmetric medial/lateral properties (touches claims 1, 5, 6, 27).
3. US 6,199,303 (adidas/Luthi) — pronation-controlling medial forefoot stability element (touches claims 1, 9, 11).
4. EP 1 092 358 A1 (Lotto) — the reference the patent family itself engaged with (and distinguished).
5. US 6,498,235 (adidas) and US 5,461,801 (Anderton) — cleated-plate structure and bar materials (claims 13, 14, 16, 19, 20).

Bottom line on § 102: On the record I can access, no single cited reference anticipates independent claim 1. Each is missing at least the claimed cleat-assembly support bars having a medial midfoot stiffened section that is stiffer than the lateral midfoot stiffened section. The references instead supply individual claim elements that the examiner would combine under § 103 (and PUMA pursued exactly this line in IPR2019‑01043). Narrower dependent claims are the more plausible § 102 targets: e.g., claim 19 (TPU bars) ← US 6,498,235; claim 9 (bar/anatomical extents) ← US 3,081,774 / US 4,914,838 / US 6,199,303; claims 21–24 (EVA/Phylon midsole, no full-length board) ← midsole art such as US 4,766,679. The nitinol-strip claim (claim 12) and the clear/translucent-matrix claims (claims 6–8) do not appear to be met by any citation on the record.

6. Gaps and caveats (stated so they are not mistaken for findings)

• The most probative prior-art set may not be in the citation list at all. PUMA's IPR2019‑01043 petition grounds (and its asserted primary references) are what actually mattered, and I could not retrieve the petition text within this session's tool budget. The IPR exhibits I did see (e.g., Exhibit 1001 = the '746 patent; Exhibit 2013 = US 6,199,303) suggest the parties, too, worked from the cited art. Confirm the IPR grounds via PTAB if a definitive prior-art statement is required (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01043).
• Commonly-owned background applications deserve a separate look. The specification cites Nike's own US 10/179,013 ("Article of Footwear Having a Regional Cleat Configuration") and US 10/179,014 ("…Medial and Lateral Sides with Differing Properties" — which issued as US 6,892,479). Both were filed in 2002, i.e., before the '746 filing, so they are potential § 102(e) art, subject to the pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership carve-out for obviousness. They are not in the citation list but are the most topically adjacent references and should be evaluated element-by-element.
• I verified the full text of US 6,108,943, US 6,199,303, US 6,498,235, and US 4,316,334 via search; for the remaining references I relied on the authoritative citation table in the patent itself and have marked those providing only title/classification-level descriptions. Where I could not retrieve full text (e.g., US 6,167,640, US 5,452,526, US 5,461,801), I have said so explicitly rather than asserting a § 102 match.
• Dates are given as literally listed in the Google Patents citation tables; for a legal § 102(a) vs. § 102(b) vs. § 102(e) allocation you should confirm each reference's actual publication/priority date against the original document.

I'll ground the analysis by confirming the content of the key prior-art references listed on the patent page before mapping them to the claims.

Let me confirm the remaining key references and the two commonly-owned Nike applications cited in the '746 specification.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. Per the task instruction, I am working from the Prior Art section of the US 6,973,746 Google Patents page (i.e., the 34 "Patent Citations," the 4 "Non-Patent Citations," the 12 "Family Cites Families," and the two commonly-owned Nike applications named in the '746 background). I am not using the "Cited By"/"Families Citing This Family" lists as prior art, since those are post-2003 documents (e.g., Auger US 2009/0293315) and therefore cannot be § 102 art against a July 25, 2003 priority date. That distinction matters because the parallel PUMA petition IPR2019-01042 on Nike's '065 patent relied on Anderton + a 2009 Auger publication — a combination that is not available against the '746 patent.

1. Framework and the operative claim construction

The controlling test is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination is obvious where the references are from the same field, address the same problem, and the modification is "a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

One limitation drives the entire analysis: claim 1's terminal limitation, "the medial stiffened section being stiffer than the lateral stiffened section." In the D. Mass. action, the parties agreed to construe this as "medial stiffened section being less easily bent than the lateral stiffened section" (Doc. 111, Nike v. PUMA N.A., No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS). This is a relative, functional stiffness comparison — which makes it comparatively easy to meet with prior-art teachings of directionally asymmetric sole stiffness, provided the asymmetry runs medial-stiffer.

(Note also the earlier-section flag: claim 1 is the sole independent claim; everything else is dependent. That concentrates all § 103 risk on one claim and drags the whole patent down with it if claim 1 falls.)

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

Drawing on the level-of-skill formulation used for the closely related Nike cleated-footwear patent in IPR2019-01042 (same district-court case, same technology): a POSITA would have an undergraduate degree in industrial/product design or mechanical engineering, or roughly 2–4 years of practical experience designing athletic footwear, with a working knowledge of cleated-sole construction, midsole foams, and pronation/supination biomechanics. Critically, this is not a highly unpredictable art — sole stiffness, cleat placement, and medial/lateral asymmetry were well-trodden engineering parameters by 2003.

3. Scope and content of the prior art (from the '746 page)

Notably, the examiner's own "Prior art keywords" on the face of the '746 page are article, medial, footwear, lateral, support bar — confirming the search was squarely on the medial/lateral support-bar concept.

Commonly-owned references — an important caveat. The '746 background cites Nike's own application Ser. Nos. 10/179,013 ("Article of Footwear Having a Regional Cleat Configuration") and 10/179,014 ("Article of Footwear Having Medial and Lateral Sides with Differing Properties," which issued as US 6,892,479). These are dollar-for-dollar on point, but because they were commonly owned with the '746 by Nike at the time the '746 was made, and are prior art only under § 102(e), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) would exclude them from a § 103 combination. They may be usable for § 102, but I would not build a § 103 ground on them.

4. Claim 1 — the core obviousness grounds

Ground 1A (primary): US 6,199,303 in view of US 5,461,801 (and/or US 6,499,235)

Mapping.

• Upper + cleat assembly + base with medial/lateral sides + downwardly extending ground-engaging members — disclosed by Anderton ('801), which shows "a sole 2 and an upper 3" with plural forward and rearward cleats, and by Adidas '235's cleated forefoot plate with first- and fifth-metatarsal cleats.
• Medial support bar on the medial side and lateral support bar on the lateral side — Anderton's sole includes "a lateral midfoot bar … disposed proximate the lateral edge" plus medial edge reinforcement ribs; Adidas '235 arranges cleats/plate structures along both the medial and lateral aspects.
• Medial stiffened section near the medial bar's midfoot portion, lateral stiffened section near the lateral bar's midfoot portion — Anderton expressly teaches that its reinforcement structures differ in thickness and depth by region (heel ribs thicker/deeper than arch ribs, thicker/deeper than forward ribs), i.e., localized, zone-specific stiffening of the sole structure.
• Medial section stiffer than the lateral section — US 6,199,303 supplies this exact directionality. Luthi's stability element is expressly designed to "extend substantially along the medial side … to compensate for excessive pronation," is characterized by a bending strength selected to reduce the measured pronation angle, and is described as not yielding on the medial side under higher pressure. Under the agreed construction ("less easily bent"), a medial element that does not yield medially while the lateral side does is precisely "medial stiffened section less easily bent than the lateral stiffened section."

Motivation to combine.

1. Same field, same problem. Both are athletic-footwear sole constructions addressing stability and injury/fatigue. Anderton's stated purpose is "improved maneuverability, including stopping, starting and turning ability for sports such as soccer"; Luthi's is "controlling … the rotation of the forefoot … to avoid excessive pronation or supination, thereby reducing and/or preventing premature fatigue or injuries."
2. The '746 specification itself concedes the problem is known. It recites that pronation "is of special interest" and that "excessive pronation can lead to fatigue and injuries." A POSITA seeking to reduce pronation in a cleated shoe would consult the reference that measured pronation reduction (US 6,199,303) and apply its medial-stability teaching to the known cleated-sole architecture of Anderton.
3. Predictable result. Per KSR, making one side of a stiffened sole structure stiffer than the other is "a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" — stiffness asymmetry was already the express design currency of Nike's own US 6,108,943.

Ground 1B (alternative): US 6,108,943 in view of US 6,199,303 and US 3,081,774 / US 4,316,334

• US 6,108,943 is the broadest primary reference: it teaches that a shoe is "basically made up of two halves" that "perform very different actions," with asymmetry in the sole via "different midsole materials, supporting elements," and midsole portions 94/96 having different hardness/compression values.
• US 6,199,303 supplies the medial-stiffer direction and the pronation rationale.
• US 3,081,774 and US 4,316,334 supply the anatomical siting (medial ribs extending "from the heel to the first … metatarsal"; first-metatarsal stiffening) that claim 9 recites, and provide the "support bar" structure itself.

Caveat I must flag honestly (potential teaching-away argument). US 6,108,943 is a tennis shoe and explicitly teaches making the medial side flexible and the lateral side supportive (to enhance toe-off). That is the reverse of claim 1's medial-stiffer geometry. Nike could argue this "teaches away." I do not think that argument prevails, for three reasons: (a) KSR holds that a reference need not be the inventor's own purpose, and a reference does not "teach away" merely by disclosing one embodiment; (b) US 6,199,303 affirmatively reaches the opposite polarity for the opposite sport-specific problem (pronation control, which the '746 patent itself identifies as the governing concern for soccer); and (c) the '746 specification frames its asymmetry as pronation reduction, not tennis toe-off — so the POSITA would follow Luthi, not the tennis rationale. Still, this is the strongest non-obviousness argument available, and it should be taken seriously.

Ground 1C (weaker): EP 1 092 358 A1 (Lotto) as primary

The Lotto soccer insole with medial/lateral support is in-field and on-topic, but I have not verified that it discloses a stiffness differential between medial and lateral midfoot structure. Treat this as a secondary/backup reference rather than a primary.

5. Dependent claims 2–20

Because every claim depends from claim 1, if claim 1 falls, the dependent claims fall unless they add a separately non-obvious limitation. Representative mappings:

6. Dependent claims 21–26 (midsole / upper construction)

• Claim 21 (cushioning midsole bonded to base; upper lacks full-length lasting board; upper directly bonded to midsole). This is ordinary Strobel/slip-lasted construction, well known in athletic footwear by 2003. US 5,896,608 (Whatley, "Footwear lasting component") and US 6,018,891 (Rockport, "Shoe construction") are cited on the page and directly address bottoming/Strobel constructions. Motivation: elimination of a full-length lasting board to reduce weight and improve flexibility/comfort — a predictable structural choice.
• Claim 22 (closed-cell compressed foam) and claim 24 (heated and compressed EVA / "Phylon"). Compressed EVA midsole foam was ubiquitous; US 6,108,943 itself describes a foam midsole "Shore A hardness of approximately 55–60." Phylon is a well-known trade process. Strong § 103 candidate.
• Claim 23 (air cushion in heel; 2–3 mm toe foam; 8–10 mm combined). US 6,108,943 expressly discloses that "the foam midsole may be formed with or without the inclusion of other cushioning elements, such as a resilient inflated bladder." The specific numeric ranges are the patent's own per-size working values (the spec says they scale with shoe size) and are not shown in the specification to be critical — numbers recited only in the claims, with no criticality argument, are classic KSR "obvious design choice" material.
• Claim 25 (peripherally stitched Strobel sock). Standard Strobel construction — see US 5,896,608 / US 6,018,891.
• Claim 26 (padded collar; lining extending inside foot-receiving region; heel substantially free of discontinuities). This is a comfort/aesthetics feature. US 6,298,582 (Nike, "Article of footwear with heel clip") is cited and addresses heel-counter structure; US 4,766,679 (Puma midsole) addresses collar/cushioning. This claim is moderately easy to attack as a known comfort expedient, but the "substantially free of discontinuities" language is soft and could invite a written-description/enablement fight rather than a § 103 fight.

7. Claims 27–30

These merely re-recite, within the claim-22 midsole sub-chain, features already discussed: medial bar thicker than lateral (claim 27, cf. Anderton); supplemental stiffening element (claim 28); flexure region with medial flexible extension + phalangeal support (claim 29, cf. US 6,199,303); and integral studs protruding through the bars (claim 30, cf. Anderton/US 6,499,235). No independent § 103 significance.

8. Secondary considerations

I have no evidence on the record of the four classic Graham secondary considerations for the '746 patent:

• Commercial success — the accused PUMA evoSPEED SL, FUTURE Netfit, and ONE 18.1 products are PUMA's, not Nike's, and thus not evidence of the '746's commercial success; and the case settled before any merits finding.
• Copying — Nike pleaded willful infringement in Nike v. PUMA, but willfulness allegations were never adjudicated; the January 13, 2020 termination and the December 3, 2019 IPR settlement mean neither tribunal reached the merits.
• Long-felt need / failure of others — the '746 specification does assert a long-felt need for cleated footwear addressing pronation and stud pressure, and Nike argued this at prosecution. This is the only secondary-consideration thread with any support, but a "long-felt need" asserted in the specification itself (and addressed by earlier Adidas/Nike references on the very same problem) carries little nexus weight.
• Industry praise — none identified in the record.

Because the PUMA litigation and IPR both settled before institution-on-the-merits resolution, there is no adjudicated § 103 holding for the '746 patent one way or the other. The closest adjudicative analogue is the PUMA petition in IPR2019-01042 (the sibling '065 patent), which the Board instituted on an Anderton-based § 103 ground — but that ground used a 2009 Auger publication unavailable here, and IPR2019-01043 (the '746 IPR) was terminated-settled before the Board decided the merits.

9. Bottom line

The single most important practical point: the '746 patent has exactly one independent claim, and its point of novelty over the cited art is a relative-stiffness limitation that the patent itself frames as a known pronation-control concept — the very concept US 6,199,303 was granted on in 2001. A challenger who pairs the Adidas stability-element teaching (medial, pronation-reducing, non-yielding under medial load) with any cleated-sole base having discernible medial/lateral support structure (Anderton, Adidas '235, or Nike's own US 6,108,943) has a strong KSR case against claim 1 and, by dependency, against the large majority of claims 2–30. Nike's residual defenses live in the aesthetic/visibility cluster (claims 6–8) and the nitinol strip (claim 12), neither of which protects the commercial core of the patent.

Caveats. (i) The claim-1 mapping assumes the agreed construction "less easily bent," which the parties reached but no court adopted in a merits opinion. (ii) I verified the disclosure text of US 6,108,943, US 6,199,303, US 6,499,235, US 3,081,774, and US 5,461,801 this session; US 4,316,334, US 5,452,526, US 6,167,640, US 4,766,679, US 5,896,608, and US 6,018,891 are characterized from their titles as listed on the '746 page and were not independently re-verified, so citations to them should be confirmed before being used in a filed paper. (iii) The "Air Jordan 15" and "Catch Me If You Can" NPL items are listed on the page but I could not confirm their specific disclosures; do not rely on them without obtaining the documents.