US 7401420

I'll verify current information on this patent before summarizing.

Let me confirm the litigation posture and check for any 2026 appeal specific to the '420 patent.

Let me check the actual claim text of the '420 patent.

US Patent 7,401,420 — Summary

Sourcing note: Bibliographic data below is taken from the patent text itself (Google Patents fetch, 2026‑09‑24) and corroborated by independent sources. Where I could not verify something with high confidence, I say so explicitly. I also flag one search limitation at the end.

Bibliographic data (verified)

Abstract (verbatim)

"A sole component and a method of manufacturing the sole component are disclosed. In general, the sole component includes a fluid-filled bladder and a reinforcing structure extending around the bladder. The reinforcing structure is bonded to the exterior of the bladder, and may be recessed into the bladder. In some embodiments, the reinforcing structure extends along the side surfaces of the bladder and between upper and lower surfaces of bladder. In manufacturing the sole component, the reinforcing structure may be located within a mold, and the polymer material forming the bladder may be bonded to the reinforcing structure during the molding process."

Independent claims — plain language

Caveat on fidelity: the claim set was not included in the authoritative patent text I retrieved (the fetch contained the abstract, summary, definitions, and description, but not the numbered claims). The overview below is built from the patent's own Summary of the Invention and the corresponding international family member's claim groups (see below), not from verbatim claim language. Treat it as reliable as to substance and scope direction, but not as a literal claim quotation.

The Summary identifies the invention's three aspects, which map to the likely independent claims:

1. Article of footwear / sole component with a recessed reinforcing structure bonded under tension.
   A bladder is formed of a "barrier material" enclosing a pressurized fluid that exerts an outward force on the barrier material. A reinforcing structure is at least partially recessed into the barrier material and bonded to it. At least a portion of the reinforcing structure is placed in tension by the outward fluid force; it restrains distension/swelling of the bladder. The reinforcing structure is preferably of a material with a greater modulus of elasticity than the barrier material.

2. Article of footwear with a defined reinforcing‑structure geometry (first portion / second portion / connecting portions).
   The bladder has a first surface, an opposite second surface, and a sidewall. A first portion of the reinforcing structure sits at the interface of the first surface and sidewall, and a second portion at the interface of the second surface and sidewall; both may run along the lateral side, around the heel region, and along the medial side. The connecting portions extend along the sidewall between the first and second portions, are recessed into the sidewall, and may be inclined relative to those portions. Optional dependent features include interior bonds spaced inward from the sidewall, a flexion indentation in the second surface with a fluid space above it, a lasting ridge/ridge 45 for securing the upper, bridges across the upper surface, and extensions/heel counter/lacing members.

3. Method of manufacturing a sole component.
   Molding a fluid‑filled bladder from a polymer material, recessing a reinforcing member into the bladder, and bonding the reinforcing member to the bladder — specifically by placing the reinforcing member inside the mold before introducing/forming the polymer material, so the bladder material is drawn against the reinforcing member and bonds to it during molding (thermoforming or blow molding).

Consistency check: the corresponding PCT case (WO 2005/063071) had a unity‑of‑invention objection listing exactly these groups — group 1 "article of footwear or (sole) component with bladder containing fluid… reinforcing structure partially recessed in and bonded to bladder and being placed in tension by pressure," group 2 "article of footwear … reinforcing structure having a first portion, a second portion and connecting portions … partially recessed in and bonded to bladder and being placed under tension," and a method group. That is corroborating, not verbatim '420 claim text.

Representative technical content (for context)

• Bladder may be a two‑film/thermoformed structure with a peripheral bond 33 and interior bonds 34 spaced inward from the sidewall; the '420 describes an arrangement where interior bonds join the upper barrier layer to a flexion indentation 35 so that a fluid‑filled space remains between the indentation and the upper layer, providing cushioning and flex.
• Bladder materials: polyurethane/polyester/polyether polyurethane; TPU–EVOH alternating‑layer films (Mitchell et al., US 5,713,141 / 5,952,065); microlayer membranes (Bonk et al., US 6,082,025 / 6,127,026); Rudy patents US 4,183,156 / 4,219,945.
• Reinforcing structure materials: polyester, thermoset/thermoplastic urethane, nylon blends, glass/carbon‑fiber composites, PEBAX polyether block amide, HYTREL polybutylene terephthalate.
• Fluids: nitrogen, air, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride; ~15 psi typical (range 0–30 psi).

Enforcement / litigation posture (as reported by third‑party databases)

• Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:18‑cv‑10876 (filed May 3, 2018). The '420 was one of seven asserted patents (alongside US 6,973,746; 7,637,032; 8,266,749; 9,078,488; 9,314,065; 9,375,046). Nike alleged Puma's Jamming footwear (released Nov. 2017) infringed the '420. The case was reportedly terminated on January 13, 2020.
• C.D. Cal. No. 2:19‑cv‑09230 is cross‑referenced in the Google Patents litigation data for this family.
• PTAB IPR2021‑00160 (U.S. Pat. 7,401,420), petitioner Unified Patents — listed as terminated by Settlement.
• Google Patents also lists a first worldwide family‑litigation filing link (Darts‑ip family 34681641).

On your specific request re: USPTO and CAFC 2026 dockets

• I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion involving patent 7,401,420. My search for CAFC 2026 activity returned only unrelated hits — e.g., Manufacturing Resources International v. Squires, Nos. 2024‑2224/2231 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2026), which concerns U.S. Pat. 10,506,740 (a different patent whose number merely contains "740"), and Fed. Cir. No. 25‑1470 (Spero). I did not auto‑substitute any of these for 7,401,420.
• Practically, any live CAFC docket for the '420 in 2026 would be unlikely: the patent expired May 15, 2024, the principal 2018 district‑court action was terminated in 2020, and the only identified PTAB proceeding settled.
• I could not directly query PAIR/PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system in this session; the above reflects indexed public sources. If you need certified‑status confirmation (assignment chain, expiration, any post‑issuance certificates), the authoritative sources are USPTO PatentCenter for application 11/434,301 and the CAFC docket for any appeal number you have separately identified.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7401420. Let me start with searches on patent litigation databases.

I found key cases. Let me dig deeper into each and look for additional litigation.

Let me verify the Skechers case specifics and the PTAB proceeding.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,401,420

Based on my searches of patent‑litigation databases (Unified Patents portal, PTAB records, IPWatchdog, and litigation‑tracking sources), I identified two district‑court litigations and one related PTAB inter partes review involving U.S. Patent No. 7,401,420 ("the '420 patent," Article of Footwear Having a Fluid‑Filled Bladder with a Reinforcing Structure, Nike, Inc.; inventors Dojan, Foxen, Swigart, Schindler). I did not find any CAFC appeal or ITC § 337 action specifically naming the '420 patent.

1. Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc. (D. Mass.)

2. Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (C.D. Cal.)

3. Related PTAB proceeding (not a district‑court case, but part of the same dispute)

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (Dojan et al.) — IPR2021‑00160

This IPR was filed by Skechers as a defensive challenge in the same C.D. Cal. litigation (No. 2:19‑cv‑09230) and was resolved when the parties settled globally.

Summary

• Known district‑court litigations asserting the '420 patent: 2
  1. Nike v. Puma North America, D. Mass. 1:18‑cv‑10876 — settled/dismissed with prejudice (2019–2020).
  2. Nike v. Skechers U.S.A., C.D. Cal. 2:19‑cv‑09230 — settled (November 2021).
• Related PTAB IPR: 1 — IPR2021‑00160 (Skechers v. Nike), terminated‑settled December 17, 2021.
• No CAFC appeal or ITC Section 337 action specifically naming the '420 patent was found. The '420 patent's term expired / adjusted expiration was recorded as 2024‑05‑15, and Google Patents lists it as "Expired – Lifetime."

Caveats: I was able to confirm the Puma case number/filing date and the PTAB IPR details with high confidence. For the Skechers district‑court case I confirmed the case number (2:19‑cv‑09230), the accused '420 products, and the November 2021 settlement, but I did not independently verify the exact complaint filing date (only the year and docket number). Settlement terms for both cases are confidential and were not disclosed in the sources reviewed. I recommend confirming the Skechers filing date directly via PACER (C.D. Cal.) if a precise date is required for your purposes.

I'll start by verifying what's actually on file, since the patent page itself flags a PTAB case that the ODP block doesn't reflect.

The ODP block says "no AIA proceedings," but the patent page and a PTAB filing both point to a real IPR. Let me pin down the details.

Now let me check for any companion IPRs and the district-court thread about disclaimed claims in the '420 patent.

⚠️ Threshold finding: the ODP block is wrong

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,401,420. That is not accurate. There is one IPR on file, and it is corroborated by three independent sources:

1. The patent's own Google Patents record lists "PTAB case IPR2021-00160 filed (Settlement)" with a link to portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00160.
2. The proceeding's papers are public, including the Patent Owner's Response (Paper 23) and the Board's Termination Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial (Paper 30).
3. Third-party dockets (Docket Alarm, GreyB/IPverse) show the case with an institution date and a termination date.

Two corrections to common mis-readings of the Google Patents page:

• The petitioner is Skechers U.S.A., Inc., not Unified Patents. The "Unified Patents" string on that page is a CC-BY data-source attribution for the litigation feed, not a party. No defensive aggregator is in the chain here.
• The ODP ingest gap is likely because the case terminated by settlement before any Final Written Decision, so it never produced a § 318(a) FWD for the ODP to index as an outcome.

Proceedings overview

Total: 1 AIA trial proceeding on file — 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 1 settled post-institution, 0 institution denials, 0 active. Bottom line for a defendant today: no claims of the '420 patent have ever been canceled or even adjudicated on the merits at the PTAB, no petitioner estoppel attaches, and the patent itself expired on 2024-05-15 — so you are facing an expired, untested patent whose only exposed claims (14–17) were challenged once, settled out, and left standing by default, meaning your validity attack must be built from scratch in district court rather than inherited from a PTAB record.

IPR2021-00160 — Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. NIKE, Inc.

(Styled "Skechers U.S.A. v. Dojan et al" in some databases, which name the inventors rather than the assignee.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq.)
• Filed: 2020-10-30 (Mealey's reported the petition date as 2020-10-30; the Board and third-party dockets use the same date)
• Status: "Terminated-Settled" (GreyB/IPverse verbatim); the patent page's own field reads "filed (Settlement)". Gloss: the Board instituted trial, then terminated the whole proceeding on a joint motion under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) without ever issuing a Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Ken B. Barrett (writing), Scott A. Daniels, and George R. Hoskins — the panel named on the 2021-12-17 Termination Order. (The institution panel is not confirmed from the record I retrieved; do not assume it is identical.)
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 14–17 (four claims). Two grounds, as framed in Patent Owner's Response (Paper 23):
  • Ground 1 — Chi (Ex. 1005): anticipation and/or obviousness of claims 14–17.
  • Ground 2 — Rudy (Ex. 1006): obviousness of claims 14–17.
  • Statutory basis: § 102 and § 103. No § 112 grounds identified. Nike's Ground 1 defense was that Chi fails to disclose "a reinforcing structure"; its Ground 2 defense was that Rudy fails to disclose "a reinforcing structure" and "an upper secured directly to the first portion of the lasting surface and the second portion of the lasting surface." These are the two limitations to attack.
  • Context: the '420 patent has at least 17 claims; the record I retrieved does not establish the total claim count, so I do not state one.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2021-05-19. Nike fought institution hard on Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) grounds, arguing in its Preliminary Response and authorized Sur-Reply (Paper 9, filed 2021-03-26) that the co-pending C.D. Cal. case (then on its third trial-continuance track) would be trial-ready before the statutory FWD deadline in May 2022 and that the district court had denied a stay on 2020-12-30. Skechers replied (Paper 8, 2021-03-19) that the case had been reassigned to Judge Aenlle-Rocha, that it had stipulated to IPR-based invalidity, and that delay was attributable to Nike. The Board declined to exercise its Fintiv discretion and instituted. I have not retrieved the institution decision's full text, so I will not paraphrase its reasoning further than that.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. The Termination Order states expressly: "This Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Consequently no claim of US 7,401,420 was canceled, confirmed, or otherwise adjudicated at the PTAB. Claims 14–17 sit exactly as issued.
• Settlement / termination: Board authorized the parties by email on 2021-12-02; the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate under § 317(a) that same day, with the settlement agreement as Exhibit 1043 and a Joint Request to treat it as business confidential under § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties represented that the agreement "resolves all underlying disputes between the Parties, including this proceeding." The Board granted both requests on 2021-12-17 (Paper 30), finding this was "a sufficiently early stage where Patent Owner has yet to file a sur-reply and we have not rendered a final decision on the merits," and that good cause existed to terminate. The settlement terms are confidential and have not been made public. The global settlement coincided with the broader Nike–Skechers truce (mediation before Judge James Holderman on 2021-11-16; settlement reported ~2021-11-19/23).
• Appeal: None. With no FWD, there was no appealable final agency action. No CAFC docket exists for this proceeding.
• Procedural significance of "post-institution" termination: Because the Board terminated under § 317(a) after institution but before a FWD, the record contains a full set of merits papers — Skechers' petition with the Chi and Rudy invalidity theories, Nike's Response rebutting both limitations, expert deposition transcripts (Dr. Kim B. Blair, 2021-10-21), and Skechers' invalidity contentions from the district court — all of which are now a free, fully-briefed roadmap for the next challenger, with none of the estoppel that would normally come with it.
• Defensive value: This proceeding handed a defendant a gift, not a burden. There is no FWD to bind anyone and no claim to avoid, so Nike cannot point to a PTAB win here — but equally, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel wall stopping you from re-running Chi, Rudy, or any better art. Practically: your real exposure is a past-damages-only theory on claims 14–17 for pre-2024-05-15 conduct, and your best leverage is the prosecution/PTAB record showing that a well-funded competitor took those exact claims to institution on § 102/§ 103 grounds before buying its way out.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. This is the single most important fact about US 7,401,420 at the PTAB. There is no canceled claim, no confirmed claim, no surviving-after-IPR claim, and no adverse judgment. Claims 14–17 — the only claims ever asserted in litigation and the only claims ever petitioned — were instituted for trial on 2021-05-19 and then abandoned by settlement on 2021-12-17. All other claims of the patent (1–13 and anything above 17) have never been challenged at the PTAB at all. Anyone who tells you this patent was "hardened by surviving two IPRs," or conversely that "claims 1–5 were canceled," is describing a different patent. The patent has also expired — Google Patents records an adjusted expiration of 2024-05-15 and a status of "Expired – Lifetime." That caps your exposure at pre-expiration conduct, further limited by the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year damages lookback measured from the complaint.

Estoppel landscape: wide open, which is unusual and favorable. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel in civil actions is triggered only by "a final written decision under section 318(a)." Here there was none, and the Board said so in terms. Independently, even a FWD would not have estopped Skechers, because 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) and § 315(e)(1) carve out petitioners who settle under § 317. So for a defendant being asserted against today: Chi, Rudy, and every reference in Skechers' 2020 preliminary invalidity contentions remain fully available — including EP 1 397 972 A1 (effective filing date 2002-09-13) and JP 2002-238613 A — as do any grounds that were never petitioned. There is also no § 325(d) problem created by this IPR, and no petitioner-side IPR estoppel to inherit. The one thing you cannot do is rely on the settlement as a judgment: the agreement is confidential, was sealed under § 42.74(c), and any res judicata or collateral estoppel argument would have to be sourced from whatever the district court docket shows, not from the PTAB file.

Pattern signals. Petitioner: Skechers was a serial, coordinated challenger, not a one-off — it filed a companion petition, IPR2021-00159, against Nike's U.S. Patent No. 10,098,412 (challenging claims 1–7), and the two cases shared a single expert (Dr. Blair) and a single deposition. Both arose out of Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-09230 (C.D. Cal.), where Nike asserted '420 claims 14–17 and '412 claims 1–7. Both IPRs ended in the same November/December 2021 global settlement. Patent owner: Nike litigated hard at the POPR stage (Fintiv, § 325(d)-style arguments in the companion case) but has not pursued any PTAB appeal on this patent, and there is nothing to appeal. Aggregators: none — the "Unified Patents" attribution on the patent page is a licensing credit, not a party. Other litigation: Nike also asserted the '420 patent against Puma in Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10876 (D. Mass., filed 2018-05-03, with '420 among seven asserted patents); a third-party litigation database reports that action was dismissed on 2020-01-13.

Unverified thread — do not rely. A District of New Jersey opinion (gov.uscourts.njd.503925, D.E. 34) discusses a plaintiff's voluntary disclaimers of claims 6 and 8 of a "'420 Patent" and a related "'631 Patent" with a terminal disclaimer, and rejects an adverse-judgment theory under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). I could not confirm that the "'420 Patent" in that case is US 7,401,420 — the opinion's subject matter and the asserted claims (6 and 8) do not match the '420 footwear patent's asserted claims (14–17). Treat as a cross-check item, not a finding.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant:

• Do not concede validity by default and do not over-credit a "PTAB win." There is no FWD. The correct framing of the record is: the sole IPR on this patent, IPR2021-00160, was instituted on 2021-05-19 and terminated by settlement on 2021-12-17 with an express statement that the termination order "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Cite the Termination Order directly: Docket Alarm, IPR2021-00160, Paper 30.
• Harvest the Skechers merits papers as your opening brief. Nike's own admissions about what Chi and Rudy lack (the "reinforcing structure" and "last(ing) surface / upper secured directly" limitations) are directly usable. Start with Nike's Patent Owner's Response, Paper 23, the Petitioner's Reply on Fintiv, Paper 8, and the Joint Motion to Treat Settlement as Confidential, Paper 28.
• Run the damages clock first, not the invalidity fight. The patent expired 2024-05-15 (Google Patents "Adjusted expiration"). Confirm that date against the USPTO Patent Center maintenance/expiration record and the patent's own term calculation, then apply § 286. If the demand letter asserts ongoing infringement after 2024-05-15, that is simply wrong.
• Confirm nothing new has been filed. Re-run the PTAB E2E portal (search the proceeding number and the patent number) and check whether any ex parte reexamination, reissue, or continuation-application activity re-opened the family. Given expiration, a new IPR is low-probability but not legally impossible; the absence of any post-2021 filing is itself probative that even Nike's competitors see little value left here.

If you are considering filing your own IPR: the incentives are weak. The patent is expired, so the only value of a PTAB win is defensive (knocking out past damages claims) — and the Board may weigh the expired status and the late timing in deciding whether to institute. A district-court invalidity case or a § 282 defense, unconstrained by the § 311(b) patents-and-printed-publications-only limit, is likely the better vehicle, particularly because you can use system art and prior public use that IPR could never reach.

If no PTAB activity turns up on your own re-check: say it plainly — but on this patent the correct statement is one proceeding, instituted, settled, no FWD, no estoppel, not "no activity." Treat the ODP field on this prompt as stale.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 7,401,420 starting with the USPTO Assignment Center records and cross-referencing sources.

I have the patent text and litigation context. Now let me dig into the USPTO assignment records specifically.

I was able to gather substantial evidence, but I hit the search-step cap before I could load the Assignment Center results page directly. I'll be explicit below about what is verified vs. what could not be retrieved.

Inventors

Ownership notes on inventorship:

• All four inventors are geographically co-located with Nike's Beaverton, OR world headquarters and were Nike employees working on the Nike Air cushioning family — consistent with an employer-assignment obligation, not an independent inventor group.
• No "inventor exodus" pattern. Schindler in particular is still an active Nike inventor on 2025-era filings, so there is no evidence of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. The application (App. No. 11/434,301, filed 2006-05-12) is a continuation of Ser. No. 10/767,211 (now U.S. 7,086,179), itself claiming priority to provisional 60/531,674 filed 2003-12-23 — a normal same-company continuation chain, not a spun-out portfolio.
• The same four inventors appear on sibling Nike cases (US 2005/0132610, US 2007/0175576, etc.), confirming a single corporate R&D team rather than an acquired portfolio.

Not determinable from the record retrieved: whether any inventor's employment agreement included a separate recorded assignment instrument; and title/role details beyond inventor status.

Original assignee

• Nike, Inc. (Oregon corporation), One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005-6453 — named on the face of the patent as [73] Assignee.
• Primary line of business: design, manufacture and sale of athletic footwear, apparel and equipment; publicly traded (NYSE: NKE).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The '420 patent is part of Nike's Nike Air / fluid-filled bladder sole technology. In the IPR (IPR2021-00160), Skechers' own expert declaration concedes the patent owner is "Nike, Inc." and that Nike asserted the patent against Skechers' Skech-Air footwear; in Nike v. Puma, Nike asserted the '420 patent against Puma's "Jamming" footwear (accused first infringement November 2017). Nike's Air-family patents are asserted in Nike's own name, and Nike sells Air-based product.
• Current status: operating company; active; no bankruptcy, acquisition, or dissolution. No successor-assignee is listed on the patent face or in Google Patents' legal events.
• Related Nike IP-holding entity to be aware of: NIKE Innovate C.V., a Dutch commanditaire vennootschap with a registered address at One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005-6453. Nike's 2014 worldwide IP reorganization moved large blocks of Nike International Ltd. assets to NIKE Innovate C.V. (worldwide assignment effective 2014-04-01, executed 2014-06-30; USPTO recording received 2014-10-09 at reel 033949/0531, 242 pages, per a USPTO Patent Center/PTACTS document surfaced in search). This is Nike's own captive IP vehicle, not a third-party NPE. I could not confirm that the '420 patent was included in that transfer — Google Patents lists the '420 "Current Assignee" as Nike Inc, and its legal-events trail shows no assignment row. Treat any Nike-Innovate ownership of '420 as unverified.

Assignment timeline

Important data limitation (stated plainly, per constraints): I was unable to complete a direct query of USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search for US 7,401,420 within this session (the tool run hit a search-step cap before the Assignment Center page could be loaded). Google Patents' legal-events panel for the '420 patent lists no post-issuance assignment events — only "Application filed by Nike Inc," the priority entry, publication of US 2006/0201029 A1, grant on 2008-07-22, and the adjusted expiration of 2024-05-15. On the evidence available:

• No post-issuance assignment (conveyance type Assignment, Merger, Change of Name, Security Agreement, License, Release) is visible for US 7,401,420. The record owner appears to remain Nike, Inc.
• The only ownership-relevant instruments that would exist are (a) the inventor → Nike, Inc. assignment for App. No. 10/767,211 / 11/434,301 (employer assignment; reel/frame not retrieved in this session) and (b) any Nike, Inc. → NIKE Innovate C.V. internal reorganization instrument (reel 033949/0531 range, 2014) — inclusion of '420 not confirmed.
• I am not able to provide verified reel/frame numbers for any link in this chain. I am deliberately not inventing them.

Per the task instruction — "If the Assignment Center has no records for this patent, say so plainly and stop after this section" — the record available to me supports no recorded post-issuance transfer. Because I could not complete the direct Assignment Center retrieval, I am flagging the original inventor-to-Nike recording as unverified rather than as "no record." Verification links:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 7401420)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7401420
    2003 : Provisional filed by Nike inventors
    2004 : Parent case filed by Nike
    2006 : Continuation filed by Nike
    2008 : Patent issued to Nike Inc
    2014 : Nike IP reorg to Nike Innovate CV unverified for this patent
    2018 : Nike sues Puma on this patent
    2019 : Nike sues Skechers on this patent
    2021 : IPR2021-00160 terminated settled
    2024 : Patent term expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Nike, Inc. is the original assignee on the face of US 7,401,420 (App. No. 11/434,301, filed 2006-05-12; granted 2008-07-22), and Google Patents' legal-events trail for the patent contains no recorded post-issuance assignment — meaning the original owner remains the record owner. Nike sells the Nike Air / fluid-filled bladder product embodying the claims and asserted the patent directly in its own name against actual competitors (Puma, D. Mass. 1:18-cv-10876, filed 2018-05-03; Skechers, C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-09230, filed 2019; related IPR2021-00160 terminated-settled 2021-12-17). There is no shell-entity, asserter, cascading-transfer, bankruptcy, privateering, or defensive-aggregation evidence anywhere in the chain.

Two caveats you should close before relying on this: (1) I could not load the Assignment Center results page in this session, so even the original inventor→Nike assignment's reel/frame is unverified — confirm at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by searching patent number 7401420; (2) confirm whether '420 was swept into Nike's 2014 Nike Innovate C.V. reorganization (cf. USPTO reel 033949/0531, received 2014-10-09). Even if it was, that would be an internal corporate reorg, not an NPE transfer, and the verdict would not change.

Minor cross-reference note: the Skechers IPR exhibit quoted in my earlier litigation research renders the issue date as "Issued: July 22, 2018" — that is a typo in the petition exhibit; the patent issued 2008-07-22, consistent with the Google Patents record and the certified copy (Ex. 1001). No ownership significance.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 7,401,420. Let me start with searches on the patent and its cited references.

Let me get the detailed citation list from Justia and Google Patents for US 7,401,420.

Let me pull the complete "References Cited" list from the patent's front page.

I hit my tool-call limit while pulling the complete front-page citation list, so I'll present what I could confirm and flag the gaps explicitly rather than guess. Below is my analysis of the prior art cited on US 7,401,420 B2 (not JP7401420B2, which is an unrelated Japanese "auto dispenser" patent, and not the various 7,4xx,xxx LCD-display patents that surface in unrelated ITC/PTAB records).

Prior‑Art Analysis — US 7,401,420 B2

0. Identification and critical date (grounding)

Because '420 is a continuation whose earliest priority is Dec. 23, 2003, the § 102(a)/(e) cut‑off for citing references is on/about that date, and the § 102(b) one‑year grace date is on/about Dec. 23, 2002. Virtually every reference on the front page predates 2003, so they are all facially available as prior art.

Important scope caveat: The authoritative full text supplied to me was truncated before the claims. I therefore reason about claim scope from the Summary of Invention and the abstract, both of which describe: (i) a fluid‑filled bladder of a barrier material enclosing a pressurized fluid exerting an outward force; (ii) a reinforcing structure at least partially recessed into the barrier material and bonded to it; (iii) optionally tensioned by the outward force; and (iv) a method of molding the bladder with the reinforcing member in the mold. I could not retrieve the verbatim claim text, so the § 102 mapping below is preliminary.

1. References cited on the front page (patent documents)

From the Justia front‑page "References Cited" table for patent 7401420 (patents.justia.com/patent/7401420), the following U.S. patent documents were listed (dates as listed; inventor spellings are as printed and may include OCR variants):

Non‑patent literature cited: "Sport Research Review, NIKE, Inc., Jan./Feb. 1990."

Honesty flag: The table was truncated in the sources I could retrieve. Between roughly US 5,406,7xx and the end of the list, additional U.S. patents, any foreign patent documents, and the balance of the "Other Publications" were not fully captured. I will not invent the missing entries. If the complete list is needed, the authoritative source is the front page of the granted patent PDF (US7401420) or PAIR/PatentCenter for application 11/434,301.

2. References incorporated by reference in the specification

These are the references the applicants expressly relied on for the bladder's barrier‑material chemistry and construction; they are the technically closest teaching of the "barrier material / fluid" elements:

These are § 102(b)/§ 102(a) art as to the general bladder chemistry and fluid‑fill concepts, but none of them discloses the external reinforcing structure at least partially recessed into and bonded to the bladder, which is the distinguishing element of the '420 claims.

3. Closely related prior art cited in the international counterpart

The PCT counterpart of the '211 parent — WO 2005/063071 A3 (PCT/US2004/042596), also titled "Article of footwear having a fluid‑filled bladder with a reinforcing structure" — carried an ISR that cited, among others:

• US 4,864,738 A — "Shoe …" (cited as background)
• US 2003/0051373 A1; US 2004/0123494 A1
• US 5,042,176 A (Rudy)
• US 4,506,460 A (Rudy)
• US 5,598,645 A
• US 6,098,313 A ("Shoe sole component and shoe sole component construction method")
• EP 0 893 074 A

The ISA also noted the sole inventive concept: "article of footwear or (sole) component with bladder containing fluid, exerting an outward force on bladder, and reinforcing structure partially recessed in and bonded to bladder and being placed in tension by pressure."

4. § 102 anticipation analysis

Bottom line: On the face of these references, I found no single reference that anticipates (i.e., discloses every element of) any claim of '420, and I would expect the examiner's citations to have been applied under § 103 rather than § 102. Reasoned per‑element analysis:

A. Broad‑bladder references (structural anticipation candidates)

• US 4,183,156 (Rudy); US 4,219,945 (Rudy); US 4,340,626 (Rudy); US 4,936,029 (Rudy); US 4,506,460 (Rudy); US 4,817,304 (Parker); US 4,874,640 / US 5,235,715 (Donzis); US 4,782,602 / US 4,823,482 / US 4,991,317 (Lakic); US 4,670,995 / US 4,722,131 (Huang): These disclose fluid/gas‑filled cushioning bladders and sole structures. They can anticipate only the bladder‑enclosing‑fluid aspect if read against an independent claim that recited nothing more. Because the '420 independent claims additionally require the reinforcing structure recessed into and bonded to the bladder and (in dependent claims) its U‑shaped first/second portions and inclined connecting portions, these references do not anticipate. They are, at most, § 103 base references.
• US 5,253,435 (Auger et al.): pressure‑adjustable shoe bladder — relevant to fluid‑pressure limitations, not to the reinforcing cage.
• US 5,044,030 (Balaton); US 5,159,xxx‑class pad patents (Beuch, Graebe, Pekar, etc.): inflatable‑cushion background; not anticipatory.

B. Barrier‑material references

• US 5,713,141 / 5,952,065 (Mitchell); US 6,082,025 / 6,127,026 (Bonk): the closest teaching of the "barrier material" element. These anticipate nothing more than a bladder material, not the claimed article, and would only be § 103 fodder.

C. Same‑family / sibling patents (NOT prior art)

• US 7,086,179 and US 7,086,180 (Dojan et al.) and US 7,562,469 / 2007/0175576 / 2008/0201983–85 / 2008/0222917 (Dojan et al.) are the applicant's own continuation/divisional family claiming the same Dec. 23, 2003 priority. Because they share the earliest effective filing date, they are not § 102 prior art against '420 under § 102(a)/(e)/(b) (same inventive entity / same priority). They are the reason '420 exists, not art against it.

D. Non‑patent literature

• "Sport Research Review, NIKE, Inc., Jan./Feb. 1990" — an in‑house Nike publication cited as background; it postdates most of the structural art and, without more, does not disclose the recessed‑and‑bonded reinforcing structure.

5. Why no cited reference appears to anticipate

The novelty of '420 lies in the combination of:

1. a fluid‑filled bladder whose pressurized fluid exerts an outward force (old in the art — Rudy), with
2. a reinforcing structure that is at least partially recessed into the barrier material and bonded to it, and optionally placed in tension by the internal pressure, extending along the sidewall between upper and lower portions in the U‑shaped/inclined‑connecting‑portion geometry.

The pre‑2003 shoe‑cushioning art (Rudy, Donzis, Lakic, Huang, Lakic, etc.) teaches bladders, foams, and internal tie‑bonds, but not an external reinforcing cage recessed into the exterior of and bonded to the bladder as a unitary molded element. That is precisely the limitation the examiner appears to have treated as the point of novelty, and it is why the citations functioned as § 103 background rather than as § 102 anticipatory art.

6. Confidence, contradictions, and open items

• High confidence: the patent identity/number (7401420), its priority/filing/grant data, inventor/assignee data, and the general character of the cited art (fluid‑filled footwear bladders and cushioning).
• Medium confidence: the specific front‑page list in § 1 (dates/names taken from Justia; a few may be OCR‑variant spellings, e.g., "Selner," "Moumdjian").
• Low confidence / not verified: the complete citation list beyond the truncation point; any foreign patent documents cited; the full "Other Publications" list; and the verbatim claim text used for the § 102 mapping.
• No contradiction found between the litigation summary provided earlier and the technical record — consistent with the litigation summary, the asserted claims were 14–17 (dependent claims), which is consistent with the independent claims being broad enough to read on bladder‑and‑cage structures of the kind Puma's "Jamming" footwear allegedly used.
• Recommendation: For a defensible § 102/§ 103 chart, verify (a) the complete front‑page list against the granted‑patent PDF or PatentCenter for 11/434,301; (b) the verbatim claims of 7401420; and (c) the disclosure of each reference individually. I could not complete those verifications within this session, and I have deliberately not fabricated the missing entries.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references identified on the patent page, and try to pin down the claim text.

Good — I found that the '420 was actually subjected to an IPR on §103 grounds. Let me pin down the exact claim text and the prior-art references used.

Obviousness analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 7,401,420 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / correction to the earlier sections. The prior "Patent summary" attributed PTAB IPR2021‑00160 to Unified Patents; the "Litigation summary" attributed it to Skechers. The search results now available resolve this in favor of Skechers: the Board's institution decision (May 19, 2021) and the Patent Owner Response both caption the case Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc., Case IPR2021‑00160, Patent 7,401,420 B2. I treat the "Unified Patents" attribution as an error and flag it, as instructed.

Evidentiary caveat. I could not retrieve the verbatim full claim set of the '420 (the Google Patents fetch omitted the numbered claims), and I hit the search-step cap before I could confirm the patent numbers behind the IPR exhibits "Chi" (EX1005) and "Rudy" (EX1006). Claim 14 is quoted below exactly as the Board reproduced it, with the Board's bracketed annotations; the final element is reconstructed from the Patent Owner's own statement of issues. Everything about "Chi" and "Rudy" is drawn from the IPR papers themselves, not from a first-hand reading of those references.

1. Governing law and effective date

• Effective filing date is December 23, 2003 (provisional 60/531,674), with the '420 filed May 12, 2006 as a continuation of Ser. No. 10/767,211 (now US 7,086,179). Because that date precedes March 16, 2013, pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs, and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) supplies the controlling obviousness framework (TSM is a permissible but not exclusive rationale).
• Pre‑AIA § 103(c) matters here: the '420 sits in a five‑application family filed January 28, 2004 (Ser. Nos. 10/767,211; 10/767,212; 10/767,403; 10/767,404; 10/767,465 — the INPADOC listing under EP 1 745 710), yielding sibling patents such as US 7,086,179, US 7,555,846, US 7,559,107 and US 7,562,469. Those siblings are not good § 103 prior art against the '420 as commonly‑owned § 102(e) art, so the analysis must rest on third‑party art and on the '420's own admitted background (Rudy '156 and '945), which the specification expressly characterizes as the prior approach.

2. Person of ordinary skill

Per the IPR record, the parties treated the POSITA as a designer/engineer with a mechanical or plastics background and several years of footwear sole‑structure experience — someone familiar with (i) two‑film/thermoformed and blow‑molded fluid bladders, (ii) foam midsoles and their compression‑set problem, and (iii) the conventional use of external cages, shells and lasting lines in midsoles. That person is the touchstone for every motivation argument below.

3. The claims

Claim 14 (independent; quoted from the Board's institution decision, bracketed text per the Board):

1. [Pre.] An article of footwear comprising: [a] a sole structure incorporating a fluid-filled bladder and a reinforcing structure secured to the bladder, [b] the sole structure having an upper surface and an opposite lower surface, [c] the upper surface forming a ridge that defines a first portion of a lasting surface, [d] at least a portion of the ridge being an inclined surface formed by the reinforcing structure …

The Patent Owner's statement of issues recites an additional element — "an upper secured directly to the first portion of the lasting surface and the second portion of the lasting surface." Claims 15–17 depend directly from 14; on the family's EP counterpart (EP 1 745 710 B1, claims 16–17) they correspond to a bridge member extending laterally across the bladder and extensions of the reinforcing structure secured to the upper. Claims 1–13 were not challenged and, per the EP counterpart, are directed to the recessed‑reinforcement‑under‑tension geometry (first portion / second portion / recessed connecting portions / greater modulus / tension restricting sidewall distension). I treat claims 1–13 as substantively as the family claim language allows and not as verified '420 text.

4. Prior art material

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Chi in view of Rudy (and the admitted Rudy background). Chi discloses everything in elements [a]–[b] and, as the IPR record shows, expressly bonds a harder structure to a pressurized bladder to confine it — i.e., a "reinforcing structure … bonded to the bladder" that "restrain[s] distension of the sidewall," which is the functional core of claims 1–13. Rudy supplies the ridge/lasting‑surface arrangement and direct upper attachment of claim 14 ([c], [d]) through its load‑distributing element and outboard cushioning device. That is precisely the combination the Board found sufficient to institute. Motivation: both are footwear sole structures addressing the identical art‑recognized problem — lateral bulging/instability of a pressurized bladder; combining Chi's confining, harder flange with Rudy's upper/lasting arrangement is an arrangement of old parts yielding a predictable result (KSR). KSR also supplies the "obvious to try" branch: the '420 itself concedes the configuration of the reinforcing structure "may be significantly modified," which makes the claimed variants candidates for routine design.

Ground 2 — Chi (or Rudy) in view of US 6,665,958 and Wang '919 for the "recessed" limitation. The most defensible attack on the "at least partially recessed into the barrier material" language is a second combination — Chi (bonded, harder confining flange) plus US 6,665,958, which expressly teaches molding a cage's fins into the side walls of a bladder through known molding techniques. That is a direct, explicit motivation to recess the reinforcing element into the bladder rather than merely abut it, with a reasonable expectation of a flush outer surface and no loss of reinforcement. Wang '919 supplies corroboration that integrating a "reforming and reinforcing structure" with an inflatable body was a known technique. Nothing in the '420 claims recites an unobvious process for achieving the recess; the specification itself attributes the recess to the reinforcing structure simply being placed in the mold and the sheet drawn against it.

Ground 3 — Inherency of "in tension." The "at least one connecting portion … in tension to restrict distension of the sidewall due to an outward force induced by the pressurized fluid" limitation is a necessary physical consequence of bonding a bonded, lower‑elongation structure across a pressurized bladder wall. Chi's flange is harder and bonded and surrounds the bladder; such a structure is in tension when the bladder is pressurized. In the IPR, the Petitioner also pointed to Nike's own acquiescence, during prosecution of a related application, to the examiner's position that Chi's outsole flange is a reinforcing structure that restricts distension of the bladder sidewall — a statement against interest that strengthens this ground considerably.

Ground 4 — Material-selection claims. The "greater modulus of elasticity than the barrier material" limitations are met on the face of Chi ("harder than the bladder"), and are in any event a routine design choice among known materials (polyester, thermoset/thermoplastic urethane, nylon blends, glass/carbon‑filled blends, PEBAX®, HYTREL® — all listed in the '420 as "a diverse range of materials"). Where the reference teaches the function and the claimed material is an obvious candidate to perform it, § 103 is satisfied.

Ground 5 — Method/other claims (Section 2 aspect). To the extent the '420 carries method claims (molding a bladder, recessing a reinforcing member, bonding it — as recited in the family, e.g., EP 1 745 710 claim 35 and US 2006/0201029's counterpart claims), the combination is Rudy '156 (thermoformed/blow‑molded bladder) + Chi or US 6,665,958 (reinforcing element molded into the sidewall) + Mitchell '141/'065 (sheet materials and their processing window). The motivation is straightforward manufacturing optimization: placing the reinforcing element in the mold eliminates a post‑molding bonding step and simultaneously produces the recess — a predictable improvement in process economy of the kind KSR treats as obvious.

Ground 6 — Dependents. Bridge members across the bladder are suggested by Rudy's cross‑extending tubular chambers and by cage ribs (US 6,665,958, rib 50 spanning the periphery); upward extensions/heel‑counter and lacing members are conventional footwear elements the '420 concedes may serve "the purpose of a conventional heel counter"; interior bonds spaced from the sidewall are the standard two‑film bladder construction of Rudy '156; and flexion indentations come from the well‑known practice of defining flex lines in soles. Each dependent, standing alone, is a weak nonobviousness position.

6. Counterarguments and where the analysis is genuinely contestable

1. "Recessed into"/"flush." Chi's flange, as described in the record, surrounds and confines the bladder; it is not clearly described as being received in a depression of the bladder. Grounds 1 and 2 therefore need the second reference for this limitation — a real, if curable, gap.
2. "Ridge … inclined surface formed by the reinforcing structure" (claim 14). This is a fairly specific geometry. Absent art that expressly shows an inclined lasting ridge formed by the reinforcing element, the obviousness case on claim 14 is weaker than on claims 1–13, and depends on Rudy's load‑distributing element plus the ubiquitous inclined featherline of lasted footwear.
3. Prosecution history. The applicant amended "non‑foam element" to the broader "reinforcing structure." A broadened claim cuts against nonobviousness on the merits, but it also means any re‑litigation would focus on what "reinforcing structure" was intended to cover.
4. Objective indicia. Nike does have strong secondary‑consideration material: the long‑felt problem of foam compression set (recited in the '420's own background), commercial success of Nike Air, and apparent copying (Puma's liquid‑filled "Jamming" bladder; Skechers' gas‑filled heel bladder in a rigid frame). The weaknesses are nexus (success may be attributable to other Air/Sole features rather than to the claimed recessed‑tension structure) and the absence, in what I found, of a documented industry long‑felt need specifically for recessing the cage.
5. No adjudicated merits. The Board instituted IPR2021‑00160 on claims 14–17 over both Chi and Rudy, which is a meaningful non‑final signal that the § 103 case is at least reasonably strong; but the proceeding was terminated by settlement on December 17, 2021, so there is no final written decision and no Federal Circuit holding on validity. Any statement that the '420 has been held obvious would be unsupported.

7. Bottom line

On this record, claims 14–17 are most plausibly rendered obvious by Chi in view of Rudy (with the admitted Rudy '156/'945 background), and claims 1–13 (to the extent they carry the recessed reinforcement/tension limitations) by Chi in view of US 6,665,958 and/or Wang '919, with Mitchell/Bonk supplying the barrier materials and Chi supplying the "greater modulus" element by express disclosure. The recurring theme across every ground is KSR's "predictable use of prior‑art elements according to their established functions": the asserted advance is the union of a pressurized bladder, a harder bonded confining structure that necessarily goes into tension and restrains distension, and a conventional lasting ridge.

Confidence: high that the IPR was Skechers‑petitioned (correcting the earlier "Unified Patents" attribution), high on the claim‑14 text as quoted by the Board, moderate on the identity and disclosure of "Chi" and "Rudy," and low on the verbatim text of the '420's claims 1–13 and its method claims, which I could not verify in this session.