US 7637032

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number and check litigation/docket records.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit 2026 activity and PTAB challenges specifically involving this patent.

Let me verify which patents are at issue in the IPR and district court proceedings before linking them to this patent.

US 7,637,032 B2 — Verification Summary

I searched for this exact number (7637032) only; the findings below come from the Google Patents record for the patent, Justia's claim text, the National Law Review/IPWatchdog coverage of the litigation, a District Court docket aggregation, and a Federal Circuit order PDF. I did not have direct, live access to USPTO PatentCenter or a CAFC docket-search interface during this session, so bibliographic data is sourced from those secondary/aggregator records rather than from a primary USPTO transaction-history printout.

Bibliographic data (as reported by sources; interpreted literally)

Abstract (verbatim from the record)

"Articles of footwear include a textile upper member with an exterior constructed from knitted textile material, the exterior including a region with stability ribs and a second unribbed region. The region(s) having stability ribs may be located, for example: along a lateral midfoot side of the upper member; along a forefoot portion of the upper member; and/or along a medial midfoot side of the upper member. Other articles of footwear include an upper member having exterior and interior textile elements joined together in a stitchless manner at the foot-receiving opening of the upper member. The exterior surface of this upper member also may include one or more regions with stability structures. The stitchless textile engagement techniques can provide a smooth, non-bulky, and breathable joint that does not require thick layers of textile material in contact with or adjacent the wearer's foot."

Independent claims — plain language

Claim 1 (article of footwear — ribbed knit upper): A shoe whose upper is mostly textile, with the exterior made of knitted textile. That knit exterior has (a) a first region with "stability ribs" knitted integrally into it and (b) a second, continuous region without such ribs. Structurally, one part of the ribbed first region runs along the forefoot and another part runs along the lateral midfoot side; a portion of the non-ribbed second region runs along the junction between the upper and the sole on the lateral midfoot side, i.e., it sits between the forefoot rib portion and the lateral-midfoot rib portion. A sole member is attached to the upper.

Claim 16 (article of footwear — "enhanced stability structures" variant): The same genus expressed in broader functional language: mostly-textile upper, knit exterior with a first region of integrally formed "enhanced stability structures" and a continuous second region without them, with the same forefoot + lateral midfoot + junction-located second-region geometry, plus an attached sole member.

Note on a possible third independent claim — flagged uncertainty: The National Law Review reproduction confirms issued claim 1, and Justia's claim text for the granted patent shows claim 16 as independent with claims 17–26 depending from it. The published application (US 2007/0022627 A1) contained a further independent claim directed to the stitchless aspect ("a first textile element forming at least a major portion of an exterior surface… joined to the second textile element in a stitchless manner at a foot-receiving opening"). That corresponds to the second aspect recited in the abstract. I could not confirm from my available sources whether a stitchless-joining claim survived as an independent claim in the granted patent — the granted claim 26 that I can see is dependent on claim 16. Treat the exact granted claim set (and total claim count) as unverified; a USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier pull of the issued claims would be needed to state this authoritatively. Also note the prosecution history file includes an amendment in which "claims 1-20 [were] cancelled and claims 21-40 [were] added," so the issued claim set differs materially from the published one.

Litigation / docket findings

• Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc., D. Mass. Case No. 1:18-cv-10876, filed 2018-05-03. US 7,637,032 was one of seven asserted patents (also 6,973,746; 7,401,420; 8,266,749; 9,078,488; 9,314,065; 9,375,046). Nike characterized the '032 patent as covering a footwear upper with a knit-textile exterior having a region with stability ribs. The case ended by voluntary dismissal on 2020-01-13 (per the litigation dataset). Puma's §101 "abstract idea" motion to dismiss was denied (National Law Review, "The Abstract Idea Defense in a Patent Infringement Suit Jumped the Shark in Nike v Puma").
• CAFC 2026 dockets — no matter found specifically for 7,637,032. The 2026 Federal Circuit activity I located involving Nike and Lululemon concerns other patents: No. 2026-1275, Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., an appeal from PTAB IPR2024-00460 — and IPR2024-00460 challenged U.S. 8,266,749, not the '032 patent; that appeal was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on May 5, 2026 (nonprecedential order, mandate issued same day). A separate CAFC entry, 25-1709 Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. [ORDER], posted May 6, 2026 (origin: District Court), is likewise not confirmed by my sources to involve the '032 patent. The widely reported 2026 "fitness-tracking/fitness tracker" Nike–Lululemon rulings concern a different Nike patent family entirely.
• No IPR/PGR challenging 7,637,032 appeared in my searches. The Nike–Lululemon IPR activity I found (IPR2024-00460, plus a prior Adidas-filed IPR) relates to the '749 patent. I cannot rule out an IPR against the '032 patent that did not surface; an authoritative check of USPTO PTAB/PatentCenter for the '032 patent is warranted.

Uncertainty statement

• I have high confidence in: patent number, title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, application number, abstract, the D. Mass. case number/dates, and the text of issued claim 1.
• I have lower confidence in: the complete issued claim set and total claim count (including whether a stitchless-joining independent claim issued), whether any additional litigation or PTAB proceeding involves this patent, and the exact basis of the 2028-06-23 adjusted expiration (record shows "Active; expires 2028-06-23," which implies a terminal disclaimer and/or patent term adjustment, but I did not verify which). No CAFC 2026 docket for 7,637,032 was found by any search.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7637032/en; https://patents.justia.com/patent/7637032; https://natlawreview.com/article/abstract-idea-defense-patent-infringement-suit-jumped-shark-nike-v-puma; https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/25/nike-sues-puma-infringement-patents-covering-nikes-flyknit-air-cleat-technologies/; https://www.ip-navi.or.kr/disputenews/disputenewsIpDetail.navi?news_seq=[178303](/patent/178303)&national=US; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1275.ORDER.5-5-2026_2688630.pdf; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10853343](/patent/10853343)/nike-inc-v-lululemon-usa-inc/

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 7,637,032. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search for additional cases and the current status of the Puma litigation.

Let me verify the settlement and check whether the '032 patent was asserted in other proceedings (ITC, IPRs).

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032

I searched patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm/PTAB records, CourtListener/RECAP, IPWatchdog, National Law Review, Markman Advisors, IP-navi, and IPR filings referencing the district-court case). Based on the results, one (1) litigation is known to have asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032, plus associated PTAB/validity proceedings involving related patents in the same case. Details below.

---

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

The '032 patent's role in the case: Nike asserted seven patents against PUMA, grouped into three technology families:

• Flyknit patents (knitted uppers): 7,637,032 ('032), 8,266,749 ('749), 9,078,488 ('488), 9,375,046 ('046)
• Air patent: 7,401,420 ('420)
• Cleat-assembly patents: 6,973,746 ('746), 9,314,065 ('065)

The '032 patent (asserted claims 1–4, 8, 13–19, 23, 30, 31, 33, 34 per Nike's Supplemental L.R. 16.6(d)(1) disclosures of Jan. 2019) was directed against PUMA's knitted footwear: IGNITE Proknit, IGNITE Speed Netfit, Mostro Bubble Knit, and Jamming.

Procedural history grounded in the record:

• May 3, 2018 — Complaint filed (D. Mass.); Nike sought damages (including willfulness/treble damages and lost profits) and a permanent injunction. Complaint at ¶¶ 26–46 identifies the '032 patent and accuses PUMA products. (Complaint PDF via Knobbe Martens: https://www.knobbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nike-v-Puma-MAD-18cv10876-complaint.pdf)
• Oct. 2018 — PUMA moved to dismiss on § 101 "abstract idea" grounds (patents allegedly directed to a "shoe"); the court denied the motion. (National Law Review: https://natlawreview.com/article/abstract-idea-defense-patent-infringement-suit-jumped-shark-nike-v-puma)
• Oct. 24, 2019 — Claim construction order entered (Dkt. 111, Case 1:18-cv-10876-LTS). (RECAP: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.[198400](/patent/198400)/gov.uscourts.mad.198400.111.0.pdf)
• Dec. 2, 2019 — PUMA filed a joint motion to dismiss its IPR (IPR2019-01043, re U.S. Pat. 6,973,746) and terminate the proceeding, stating the parties had executed a settlement agreement and would file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of Nike's claims. (Docket Alarm: PTAB IPR2019-01043, Joint Motion to Dismiss)
• ~Jan. 13, 2020 — Case dismissed/terminated (per IP-navi dispute record: "소취하 판결일: 2020.01.13").
• PUMA also filed IPRs against related Nike Flyknit patents (e.g., IPR2019-01190, PUMA North America v. NIKE), which were likewise resolved in connection with the settlement.

Sources:

• Google Patents litigation tab (this patent): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7637032](/patent/US7637032)/en (links the Massachusetts District Court case 1:18-cv-10876 via Unified Patents)
• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Massachusetts%20District%20Court/case/1%3A18-cv-10876
• Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" listing (family 37398262)
• IPWatchdog (May 25, 2018): https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/25/nike-sues-puma-infringement-patents-covering-nikes-flyknit-air-cleat-technologies/
• Markman Advisors (May 7, 2018): https://www.markmanadvisors.com/blog/2018/5/7/nike-sues-puma-and-the-sneaker-patent-wars-begin

---

Important caveats and notes

1. Case-number discrepancy (not auto-corrected). Most records give the case number as 1:18-cv-10876 (CourtListener/RECAP heading, Unified Patents, Google Patents, IP-navi). However, Nike's own later Skechers complaint cites the PUMA action as "Case No. 1:18-cv-10875 (D. Mass)" (Ex. 1066 in IPR2025-00141). I am flagging this exactly as found rather than reconciling it; the docket-style identifiers differ by one digit.

2. No IPR challenging the '032 patent was identified. PUMA's IPRs in this dispute appear directed at other Nike patents (e.g., '746 in IPR2019-01043; IPR2019-01190 involving PUMA v. NIKE). I found no petition or PTAB proceeding specifically challenging U.S. 7,637,032.

3. No other litigation of the '032 patent was identified. Google Patents' litigation data for this patent lists only the Massachusetts case, and Darts-IP lists it as the "first worldwide family litigation" for the family. Later Nike knit-upper suits (e.g., Nike v. Skechers, C.D. Cal. 2:23-cv-09346; Nike v. adidas, D. Or. 3:21-cv-01780; Nike v. lululemon, S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-00771; Nike v. New Balance, D. Mass. and the ITC knit-footwear actions) assert other knit patents (e.g., '749, '484, '511, '932, '562, '636, '350, '758, '105). I did not find 7,637,032 asserted in those actions or in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289.

4. Confidence level. The existence, parties, court, case number, filing date (May 3, 2018), patent assertion, and settlement/dismissal are well corroborated across multiple sources. The exact dismissal date (Jan. 13, 2020) comes from a third-party dispute database and the settlement-driven IPR termination filing; I could not independently confirm the precise Rule 58/41 dismissal docket entry, so treat that specific date as reported rather than verified from the docket itself. If you need certified docket-level confirmation, PACER for D. Mass. Case 1:18-cv-10876-LTS would resolve items 1 and 4 above.

If you'd like, I can next pull the docket entries for 1:18-cv-10876-LTS (dismissal order, settlement stipulation) or examine whether any of the later Nike knit-litigations implicated the '032 patent in an infringement chart or invalidity contention.

I'll verify the canonical (empty) list against live sources before drafting.

No IPR hits yet. Let me probe targeted dockets and PTAB sources.

Puma did file 2019 IPRs against Nike patents. I need to check whether any targeted the '032 patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032 ("Footwear structure with textile upper member")

Patent: US 7,637,032 B2 | Nike, Inc. (assignee) | Priority 2005-07-29 | Filed 2006-06-05 (App. 11/422,141) | Granted 2009-12-29 | Adjusted expiration 2028-06-23
Sources checked: USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, provided in prompt), Google Patents family/litigation data, PTAB petition-document repositories surfaced via web search, and district-court dockets/opinions for the one known assertion of this patent.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,637,032: 0. The structured USPTO ODP block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent web checks surfaced no petition ever filed against this patent (nothing instituted, nothing invalidated, nothing settled, nothing denied — because nothing was filed). The bottom line for a defendant is the opposite of a "hardened-by-IPR" patent and the opposite of a "claims already canceled" patent: the '032 patent has never been tested at the PTAB, so all of its claims are untested and fully live. Whatever Nike asserted in litigation is still enforceable on its face, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs against anyone as to this patent. Two practical qualifiers temper that: (1) the patent is scheduled to expire 2028-06-23, so remaining term is roughly 1.7 years, which caps the upside of any new challenge; and (2) family-member and portfolio-adjacent Nike knit patents have been through AIA trials, and the results were mixed — evidence that challenges to this family are winnable in some cases and not in others.

Verification caveat (no fabrication): Absence of a proceeding is harder to prove than presence. I confirmed the zero count against the ODP block supplied to me and against multiple web searches of PTAB petition documents and Nike/Puma/adidas/Skechers coverage. I could not run an exhaustive PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions database query within this session. Before relying on the negative for a filing or clearance opinion, confirm directly at PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) by patent number and via the PTAB Decisions search at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions.

No proceedings to itemize

Because the canonical list is empty, there are no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} entries to report, and I will not manufacture any. The per-proceeding fields you asked for (judge panel, institution decision, FWD claim-level verdict, settlement, appeal, defensive value) have no content for this patent.

---

Context: the AIA activity that actually surrounds this patent

This is portfolio-adjacent and family-adjacent material — none of it is a proceeding on the '032 patent, and none of it invalidated or sustained a claim of the '032 patent. It is included only because it drives the strategic picture a defendant needs.

Federal Circuit context for the family: Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (motion-to-amend practice, arising from IPR2013-00067) and Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming Nike's knit-patent validity; adidas's obviousness challenge rejected). Note the asymmetry: adidas won before the Board on the '011 patent by Nike's own amendment, but lost on the Flyknit obviousness fights; Skechers later killed a different Nike knit patent outright. No appellate decision addresses the '032 patent.

---

The only known assertion of US 7,637,032

• Case: Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10876-LTS (D. Mass.), filed 2018-05-03, Judge Leo T. Sorokin. Nike asserted seven utility patents, with the '032 among the four Flyknit-upper patents (along with 8,266,749; 9,078,488; 9,375,046; plus 7,401,420; 6,973,746; 9,314,065 — and later-family patents 10,051,917 and 10,098,411 appear in the 2019 claim-construction order).
• Asserted claims of '032: reported as "Claims 1-4, 8, 13-19, 23, 20-31, and 33-34." ⚠️ That string, as published, is internally inconsistent (the "23, 20-31" segment is garbled and overlaps). Treat the claim set as at least claims 1-4, 8, 13-19, 20-31, and 33-34, and read the original complaint (Doc. 1) before quoting any claim list. I am not auto-correcting the identifier.
• Accused products: IGNITE Proknit, IGNITE Speed Netfit, Mostro Bubble Knit, Jamming.
• 2018-10-10: Puma's § 101 motion to dismiss (as to the '749 and '488 patents) denied — Nike, Inc. v. Puma N. Am., Inc., 2018 WL 4922353 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2018). The court held the claims were directed to shoes and their components, with inventive concepts improving knitting efficiency and reducing waste.
• 2019-10-24: Claim construction order, Doc. 111 (the '032 patent is one of six patents construed; parties agreed on most terms and on 2019-07-20 submitted agreed constructions). Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.[198400](/patent/198400)/gov.uscourts.mad.198400.111.0.pdf (also https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_18-cv-10876/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_18-cv-10876-0.pdf).
• 2020-01-13: Case terminated/dismissed. The Korean IP-navi dispute record lists the disposition date as 2020-01-13; secondary literature states the Nike–Puma knit disputes settled in 2020 (Patent Lawyer Magazine, "Turbulent times: Nike v Lululemon over FlyKnit patent portfolio"). Settlement terms are not public — do not assume any license, covenant, or validity admission attached to the '032 patent. Darts-ip family litigation record: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=37398262.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% UNTESTED. No claim of the '032 patent has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. Claims 1-4, 8, 13-19, 20-31, and 33-34 (as asserted in the Puma action — see the garbling caveat above) remain presumptively valid under § 282 and enforceable. Any statement that "claims 1-5 have been canceled" (or any similar claim-specific claim) would be false as to this patent — that outcome belongs to Nike's '011 patent (claims 1-46 canceled in IPR2013-00067) and Nike's '484 patent (all claims canceled in IPR2023-01460), not to the '032 patent.

Estoppel landscape: a blank slate. Because no IPR/PGR was filed and no FWD issued on this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to any party or privy as to the '032 patent. Every ground a challenger could raise — § 102 and § 103 on patents and printed publications, plus § 112 and § 101 in district court (and § 112 in PGR, though PGR is time-barred for a 2009-granted patent) — is fully available. Equally, there is no adverse FWD record binding Nike on obviousness, and no Board claim construction for Nike to litigate around. Note the flip side: no prior petitioner consumed the "reasonably could have raised" space, so there is no free-riding on someone else's estoppel-cleared record either.

Pattern signals. (1) No serial petitioner exists on this patent — the same-petitioner-multiple-IPR dynamic that appears on other Nike knit patents is absent here. (2) Nike's posture in this portfolio is opportunistic rather than defensive: it canceled claims 1-46 of the '011 patent by its own amendment in IPR2013-00067, and it won the adidas Flyknit obviousness fights on the merits (955 F.3d 45), but it lost the '484 patent outright at the Board. Nike also uses IPRs of its own against competitors (the IPR2025-00142 correspondence shows Arnold & Porter for Nike opposite Irell & Manella, and a joint-defense email alias "#SkechersNikeIPRs"). (3) No defensive aggregator / Unified Patents-style petitioner appears in the chain for this patent; the only identified assertion was a competitor-on-competitor suit. (4) The '032 patent's family is real and litigation-tested in district court (Markman, § 101 motion practice), so it is not an untested paper patent in the technical sense — it simply has never been the subject of an AIA petition.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant now being asserted on the '032 patent: you are defending a never-challenged patent with ~1.7 years of remaining term (adjusted expiration 2028-06-23). There is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to point to. Your invalidity case will be built from scratch — district-court invalidity under §§ 102/103/112/101, and/or a fresh IPR, unencumbered by any § 315(e)(2) estoppel. Because a post-2022 agency posture means Fintiv-style discretionary denial is a much weaker tool than it once was, a parallel IPR is a realistic option and does not carry the automatic wait for the district court that it did in 2019-2020.
2. Mind the § 315(b) one-year clock. If you were served with a complaint asserting the '032 patent more than one year ago, you are barred from filing an IPR on it — the district-court invalidity case is then your only forum.
3. Calendar reality-check. An IPR takes roughly 18-24 months from filing to FWD (institution decision ~6 months; statutory 1-year trial from institution under § 316(a)(11)). With expiration on 2028-06-23, a petition filed today would likely resolve near or after expiry — still valuable for wiping out past damages and avoiding a future-looking injunction, but it will not buy you Years of freedom. Factor that into whether to file or to negotiate.
4. Indemnity / family check. Because US 8,028,440 and US 8,590,345 share the '032 patent's specification and priority chain, confirm whether the same Nike knit patents (including 8,266,749, 9,078,488, 9,375,046, 10,051,917, 10,098,411) are being asserted against you. Challenges to those patents have different records — and Skechers's win against the '484 patent shows the family is not invincible.
5. Before filing anything: verify the negative independently. Search PTAB E2E by patent number, run the PTAB Decisions database for "7,637,032" and "7637032," and pull the full 1:18-cv-10876 docket to confirm the exact asserted claim set (particularly the garbled "13-19, 23, 20-31, 33-34" string) and the terms of the 2020-01-13 disposition. If a petition surfaces that the ODP ingest missed, this report should be updated and any IPR-based strategy re-run against the actual FWD.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,637,032. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific assignment record details and any transfers to Nike subsidiaries.

Let me search for the specific reel/frame record and any Nike-to-Nike-Innovate transfers for the '032 patent.

I've reached my tool-call limit for this session. Below is the assignment-chain reconstruction based on the sources retrieved, with verification gaps flagged explicitly.

Ownership Analysis — US 7,637,032 B2 ("Footwear structure with textile upper member")

Verification caveat up front: I was unable to complete a live query of the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ / https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) before hitting my tool limit. The chain below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record, the D. Mass. AO-120 filing (litigation exhibit), and family assignee records. I did not obtain the reel/frame number for the single recorded assignment, and I will not invent one — that field must be confirmed at the USPTO Assignment Center search page before this document is treated as authoritative on recordation mechanics.

---

Inventors

Both inventors list the Nike corporate address, and both executed an "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" in favor of NIKE, INC., recorded 2006-07-18 per the Google Patents legal-events record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7637032/en). There is no evidence of either inventor departing Nike within 12 months of filing, and no assignment activity inconsistent with ordinary employee-inventor assignment practice. Both inventors were Nike footwear designers/developers in the innovation group that produced the Flyknit-era upper technologies. The same two inventors plus Lorrie Vogel appear on sibling patent US 7,637,033 B2 ("Midsole element for an article of footwear," also assigned to Nike, Inc.) — i.e., a normal, co-pending, same-employer filing pair, not a fire-sale pattern.

---

Original assignee

Nike, Inc. (Oregon corporation), One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005-6453.

• Product embodying the claims: Yes. Nike commercially shipped Flyknit footwear (the patent was asserted against Puma's knit-upper products, described in the Korean dispute database filing as Puma IGNITE Proknit, IGNITE Speed Netfit, Mostro Bubble Knit, and Jamming products). Nike's own Flyknit line is the practicing product.
• Primary line of business: Athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment (NYSE: NKE).
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition events found. In the D. Mass. action the court's AO-120 form lists "HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK: NIKE, Inc." for patent 7,637,032 (Exhibit 1003, IPR2019-01043 docket).

---

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is reflected in the sources I could reach. Google Patents' legal-events table shows a single post-filing ownership event: "2006-07-18 — Assigned to NIKE, INC.; ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS); Assignors: WOLF-HOCHDOERFFER, SUSANNE AMALIE, SOKOLOWSKI, SUSAN L."

• Execution date: NOT OBTAINED / recorded 2006-07-18 — Reel NOT OBTAINED / Frame NOT OBTAINED
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventors → employer)
  • Assignor: Susan L. Sokolowski; Susanne Amalie Wolf-Hochdoerffer
  • Assignee: NIKE, INC. (Oregon corporation), One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR
  • Correspondent: NOT OBTAINED from available sources. (Nike's own in-house/outside prosecution correspondent was used, but the recording correspondent — the attorney of record on the assignment cover sheet — must be pulled from the Assignment Center. I will not name a firm without the record in hand.)
  • Context: Routine employee-inventor assignment to the original employer; executed in connection with filing of US 11/422,141. No consideration/fire-sale character; this is a first-link employer assignment.

No subsequent recorded assignments were found. In particular, I found no evidence of a US recordation transferring US 7,637,032 from Nike, Inc. to NIKE Innovate C.V. — which is noteworthy, because the EP family members of this same patent (EP 1919321 B1, EP 2520188 B1, EP 2941973 B1) name "NIKE Innovate C.V." as the assignee/proprietor (see PubChem EP-2941973-B1 and UK IPO record for EP2520188). That is a discrepancy to flag: the foreign counterparts sit with Nike Innovate C.V., while the US patent record still shows Nike, Inc. Google Patents lists the current US assignee as "Nike Inc", consistent with no recorded US change. If a Nike-wide assignment of US patents to Nike Innovate C.V. exists (Nike did execute a worldwide IP transfer to Nike Innovate C.V. effective April 1, 2014, as evidenced by the Canadian trademark deed in my results), it was not surfaced as applied to this specific patent in the records I could reach. Verify this at the Assignment Center — if a 2014 Nike, Inc. → Nike Innovate C.V. corporate assignment covering this patent exists, it would be a "change of holder within the same corporate family," i.e., net-zero for NPE analysis.

Per the task instruction: because records exist (the original assignment), I do not stop here; the analysis proceeds.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7637032
    2005 : Priority date Jul 29
    2006 : Filed by Sokolowski and Wolf-Hochdoerffer
         : Assignment to Nike Inc recorded Jul 18
    2009 : Patent issued Dec 29
    2018 : Nike sues Puma in D Mass
    2020 : Nike Puma suit dismissed Jan 13

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. There is no transfer to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" LLC. The chain remains inventors → Nike, Inc. (recorded 2006-07-18). No single-purpose LLC, no registered-agent address, no Delaware/Texas shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Nike, Inc. does not appear on any of the listed NPE directories (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.), and no such entity appears anywhere in the ownership record I could reach.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not present. Only one assignment exists, so there is no recurrence to test. The recording correspondent's name could not be retrieved. No finding.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is no chain of consecutive LLC-to-LLC assignments; a single employer assignment over a ~20-year life.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The only recorded transfer is dated 2006, roughly 12 years before the 2018-05-03 filing of Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc. (D. Mass. 1:18-cv-10876). There is no assignment within 6 months of suit. The patentee in the suit is the original assignee and original practicing entity.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Nike has not filed for bankruptcy; no Chapter 7/11 sale of this patent appears.

7. Privateering — Not present. The operating company (Nike) asserted the patent itself, in its own name, against a competitor (Puma), rather than transferring it to an NPE to assert on its behalf. This is the opposite of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. No neutralization signal.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The single recorded transfer is the inventors' assignment to Nike, Inc. recorded 2006-07-18 (Google Patents legal events), and Nike, Inc. remains the holder of record on the court's AO-120 filing for the 2018 action (HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK: NIKE, Inc., D. Mass. 1:18-cv-10876). Nike ships products embodying the claims (Flyknit) and sued an actual competitor (Puma) in its own name — the textbook operating-company posture, with zero of the eight NPE signals affirmatively present. The 2020-01-13 voluntary dismissal of the Puma case does not change the ownership character.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 7637032) — use this to capture the reel/frame, execution date, and recording correspondent for the 2006-07-18 assignment, and to confirm whether any Nike, Inc. → Nike Innovate C.V. corporate assignment covers this patent (the key open item, given the EP family is held by Nike Innovate C.V.).

Open items I could not resolve and will not guess: (a) reel/frame number; (b) assignment execution date; (c) recording correspondent's name/firm; (d) whether a US intra-Nike transfer to Nike Innovate C.V. exists.

I'll research the specific prior-art citations for US 7,637,032. Let me pull the patent's front-page references and related records.

Let me pull the actual front-page reference list from the patent's own records.

I have partial leads. Let me pull the patent's own citation tables directly from the patent record.

I've reached the tool-step limit, so I'll compile the findings now. Because I was unable to retrieve the patent's front-page "References Cited" (Form PTO-892 / examiner citation table) directly in this session, I must be explicit about what is verified versus unverified. I did not auto-correct any identifier.

---

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032 B2

0. Scope and retrieval limitation (read first)

• Patent under analysis: US 7,637,032 B2, "Footwear structure with textile upper member," App. No. 11/422,141, filed 2006-06-05, priority 2005-07-29 (Prov. 60/703,512), issued 2009-12-29, inventors Sokolowski & Wolf-Hochdoerffer, assignee Nike, Inc.
• What I verified: The references that appear in the patent's own specification text (which is authoritative and was supplied in full above). Three U.S. patents are expressly discussed: 4,447,967 (Zaino), 4,813,158 (Brown), and 4,756,098 (Boggia).
• What I could NOT verify this session: The complete examiner-cited front-page list (the "U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents" block on the '032 grant) and the PCT/EP search-report citations. Live searches returned reverse citations (documents that cite the '032) and citation tables belonging to other documents (e.g., DE 10 2017 008 834 A1, DE 10 2012 206 062 B4), not the '032's own front page. I flag this rather than reconstruct the list from memory, consistent with the strict no-fabrication rule.
• Contradiction check vs. earlier sections: None. This builds on the claim-1 text confirmed earlier (NLR) and continues to treat the full issued claim set as unverified beyond claims 1 and 16.

---

1. References expressly cited in the '032 specification (authoritative)

These three are the "prior art" the patent itself acknowledges, discussed in the section on stretch-resistance and abrasion reinforcement of textile uppers:

§ 102 conclusion for these three: None appears to be a single-reference anticipation of independent claim 1 or claim 16, because claim 1 affirmatively requires (a) an exterior substantially constructed from knitted textile material and (b) stability ribs integrally formed in the knitted textile material. Zaino/Brown/Boggia achieve reinforcement or stretch-limitation by adding a polymer or an inextensible element to a conventional upper — a structurally different mechanism. They are, however, squarely probative for a § 103 combination against the "regionalized stability" concept. Note that the '032 specification cites them in the background/context manner typical of Applicant-disclosed art, not as rejections.

---

2. Closely-related Nike knit-upper art that appears in the '032 "citation ecosystem"

The following are Nike documents that surface repeatedly in the same citation families as the '032 (they were listed together in DE-based citation tables and in the '011/knit-family reference blocks). I flag them as highly relevant candidates, but I could not confirm from a primary source that the '032 examiner expressly cited them. Treat the "cited-by-examiner" status as unverified.

---

3. Foreign / PCT documents in the surrounding families (context only)

Reverse-citation tables (e.g., DE 10 2012 206 062 B4) group the '032 with older shoe-upper references such as DE 618718 C (1935), DE 2 606 800 A1 (Adolf Dassler, 1977), DE 4 329 594 A1 (1995), DE 20 119 907 U1 (Puma/Dassler, 2003), and with US 7,168,188 B2 (Nike). These are not confirmed as citations of the '032 itself and serve only to show the crowded art of "upper with localized reinforcement/structure."

---

4. Direct answers to the task question

• For each patent citation I could authoritatively tie to the '032: see Section 1 (Zaino '967; Brown '158; Boggia '098). None anticipates independent claims 1 or 16 under § 102; all three are more useful as § 103 combination art against the "regional stability in a textile upper" concept.
• Best individual § 102 candidate (if cited): U.S. Pat. No. 7,347,011 (Dua/Nike) — its 2004-03-03 filing date makes it available as prior art and it is directed to a knit textile upper with varying regional characteristics, the closest structural match to claim 1's "integrally formed" ribbed knit region.
• Claim-level mapping: Claim 1 requires (i) upper mostly textile, (ii) exterior substantially knitted textile, (iii) a first region with stability ribs integrally formed in the knit, (iv) a second, continuous, unribbed region, (v) specific geometry (forefoot + lateral-midfoot rib portions with the unribbed region at the upper/sole junction between them), and (vi) an attached sole member. Any § 102 reference must disclose all of (i)–(vi) arranged as claimed; the Section 1 references teach away from (iii) by using added (non-knit) reinforcement.

---

5. Explicit uncertainty statement

1. High confidence: the identity of the three specification-cited references (Zaino, Brown, Boggia) and their general subject matter, because they are recited in the patent text supplied above.
2. Low/unverified confidence: the complete examiner-cited front-page list of the '032, whether 7,347,011 / 7,047,668 / 6,931,762 / US 2005/0208857 were cited by the examiner against the '032, the exact issue dates for Brown '158 and Zaino '967, and the full issued claim set (carried over from the prior section — still needed from USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier).
3. Recommended primary-source pulls to close the gaps: USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" and the PTO-892/1449 for App. 11/422,141; the EP 1919321 B1 and PCT/US2006/027672 search reports (ISR/ESR) which typically list the same family of knit-upper art.

If you want, I can next attempt a targeted pull of the '032's grant PDF front page (patentimages) to extract the definitive U.S./foreign reference table and the examiner's § 102/§ 103 notations.

I'll research the prior art cited on the face of this patent and related knit-footwear prior art before building the §103 combinations.

I have the full issued claim set (38 claims) and the face-of-patent references. Let me characterize the key prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032 B2

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 | Priority date: 2005-07-29 | Issued: 2009-12-29

---

0. Scope, sources, and a correction to the earlier sections

This analysis builds on the two previously generated sections (patent summary and litigation summary) and does not repeat them. The "Prior Art" record used here is the References Cited list printed on the face of US 7,637,032 (retrieved via the Google Patents record and the uspto.report grant page, both of which reproduce the front-page citations), plus the prior art discussed in the specification itself and the interpretive gloss on two of those references that appears in later USPTO PTAB petition papers.

Correction / resolution of an earlier flagged uncertainty. My earlier patent-summary section flagged that I could not verify whether a stitchless-joining independent claim issued. Now that I have the full issued claim text, that question is resolved: no stitchless independent claim issued. The granted patent has 38 claims, with independent claims 1 and 16 only. The stitchless subject matter appears solely as dependent claims 15, 34, 35, and 38. The earlier hypothesis of a "third independent claim" was incorrect.

Second flag — an inconsistency I cannot reconcile. The earlier section reported a prosecution-history entry reading "claims 1-20 cancelled and claims 21-40 added." The issued claims run 1–38. Either the "21-40" entry belongs to a different application in the family, or the claim count was later amended again. I am not auto-correcting it; treat the issued claim set (1–38) as verified and the prosecution-history numbering as unverified.

---

1. Legal framework and how it is applied here

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the inquiries are: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Critically for this patent, KSR holds that a combination is obvious where the improvement is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," and that a design need or market pressure—not just an explicit teaching—can supply the motivation to combine. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Also relevant: anticipation is the epitome of obviousness — art that anticipates a claim necessarily renders it obvious.

Practical constraint on any challenge — §325(d). Every reference I discuss below except one appears on the face of the '032 patent (Glidden, Bowerman, Zaino, Boggia, Brown, Cass, Dua '762, Bevier, Meschter, Burris, Dua '284, Dua '592) or is admitted prior art in the specification (Bemis seam tapes). This is the same posture Nike successfully leveraged in the related Flyknit IPRs, where the Board applied Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL, IPR2019-01469 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and denied institution where the petitioner "merely swaps-in" cumulative references. A §103 challenge built only on face-of-patent art therefore faces a discretionary-denial headwind, and would need to show examiner error material to patentability.

---

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

There is no dispute on the record of the related proceedings. In the parallel Nike/Skechers IPRs, the parties agreed a POSITA for knit-footwear patents "would have had at least a few years' experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used to make footwear, or a bachelor's degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent work or academic experience, including in the footwear industry." That formulation is directly transferable here given the '032 patent's subject matter (knitted uppers, circular/flat knitting, yarns, adhesive bonding).

---

3. Claim construction of the terms that drive the analysis

---

4. The prior-art landscape (content verified unless noted)

Date caveat (do not auto-correct): two face-cited documents — WO 2005/120274 (Dec. 2005) and WO 2006/028664 (Mar. 2006) — post-date the 2005-07-29 priority date on their faces and cannot be §102(a)/(b) art absent earlier filing. Any §103 ground built on them must rest on their PCT filing dates under §102(e).

---

5. The obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — Glidden in view of Dua '592 (and/or Zaino/Brown/Boggia): claims 1, 16 and most dependents

Mapping of claim 1:

The gap and how it is filled. Glidden lacks (i) a stability region placed on the lateral midfoot side and (ii) the specific gap geometry. Three alternative secondary references close it:

• Dua '592 teaches a knitted footwear upper with structurally/texturally differentiated knit zones placed at the lateral, medial, and instep regions, i.e., it teaches an artisan to select the knit structure region-by-region according to anatomy.
• Zaino '967 teaches reinforcement injected into specific zones of a textile upper.
• Brown '158 / Boggia '098 teach inextensible material secured to specific portions of an upper to limit stretch locally.

Motivation to combine (KSR): All references are in the same field (footwear uppers), address the same problem (imparting differentiated support/stretch to a textile upper without adding seams or weight), and the combination is a predictable arrangement of known elements performing their established functions — a denser/ribbed knit zone providing stability where stability is wanted, a smoother knit where flexibility is wanted. The '032 specification itself concedes the placement criterion is conventional: stability regions should be located "at anatomically dictated positions." The lateral midfoot/arch is a well-known control point for pronation, and the lasting-margin area (where the sole joins the upper) is a well-known location where bulk and stiffness are undesirable because the upper must be lasted and flexed. Placing the smooth knit along the sole junction, between the forefoot and midfoot rib bands, is the predictable result of accommodating that known lasting/flexing constraint.

Claim 16 is the same genus in broader functional language ("enhanced stability structures"). Because the specification defines that term to include "thicker or stiffer fabric patterns," densely fabricated knit regions, and injected polymer zones, Glidden alone comes very close, and Glidden + Zaino fully meets the broader term. Claim 16 is materially weaker than claim 1.

Dependents under Ground 1 (all conventional design choices or disclosed by Glidden):

• Claims 2, 17 (rib portion along the sole junction) — mere placement choice; Brown/Boggia/Zaino zone-reinforcement.
• Claims 3, 18 (region bordered by junction and second region) — Glidden's toe densification is bordered on its exposed edges by the surrounding knit.
• Claims 4, 5, 19, 20 (medial midfoot) — anatomical mirror of the lateral placement; obvious.
• Claim 6 (extending lateral forefoot → across forefoot → medial side → rearfoot) — this is precisely Glidden's toe 11 + heel 12 + surrounding knit combined with Dua '592's lateral/medial/instep zone teaching.
• Claims 7, 22 (second region across instep) — Glidden's instep area between toe and ankle.
• Claims 8, 23 (second region along lateral side of foot-receiving opening) — Glidden's unribbed elastic areas adjacent the ankle/leg opening.
• Claims 9-12, 26-29 (additional independent ribbed regions at forefoot, medial midfoot, etc.) — Glidden already has two independent densified regions (toe, heel); adding a third is an obvious duplication.
• Claims 24, 25, 36, 37 (an opening independent of the foot-receiving opening at the instep) — Glidden Fig. 4 expressly discloses a slit 22 providing "a vent extending from the top of the shoe to the instep, in a forward direction." That is an instep opening independent of the leg opening. Combined with Meschter '295 (laser incising of uppers), this is squarely obvious.

Ground 2 — Glidden + Bowerman ('750): claims 13, 14, 30, 31, 32, 33

Claims 13/30 require an interior portion made from an independent piece of textile material from the exterior portion, at least partially defining the foot-receiving chamber. Claims 14/31/32 require the interior to be free of stability structures.

Bowerman '750 discloses exactly this architecture: a multi-layer upper with a distinct outer nylon tricot fabric layer, an intermediate foam layer, and a distinct inner porous synthetic fabric layer, bonded in a sandwich. Combined with Glidden's knit outer having ribbed/densified zones, the result is the claim 13/30 structure with the smooth inner liner of claims 14/31/32. Motivation: the '032 specification itself states the interior layer is provided for comfort and moisture-wicking and is kept smooth for fit — a well-known desideratum that Bowerman already addresses. Claim 33 (insole in the chamber) is admitted conventional in the specification itself.

Ground 3 — Admitted Bemis art + Dua '592 (or Bowerman) + Meschter: claims 15, 34, 35, 38

These claims require the exterior knit and interior textile to be joined "in a stitchless manner" at a seam (claim 15: first seam; claims 34/35: at least partially, and at the foot-receiving opening), and — claim 38 — the edges of both materials along an instep opening "held together in a stitchless manner."

This ground is unusually strong because the specification admits the key element. The '032 specification describes, as background, that Bemis Associates heat-seal seam tapes are thermoplastic polymers, applied by commercial taping machines, that "replace stitching," "bond … to garments," "prevent fraying," and "join textile elements." That is a direct admission that stitchless thermoplastic textile joining — including for the express purpose of preventing unraveling — was known.

Combining that admitted art with:

• Dua '592 (a knitted exterior textile element plus an upper structure having a distinct interior region), or Bowerman (a bonded multi-layer upper), supplies the two-textile-element structure; and
• Meschter '295 (laser incising/cutting of stratified footwear uppers) plus Glidden Fig. 4 (an instep vent slit) and Glidden Fig. 5 (the problem of raveling raw edges) supplies the opening-with-sealed-edges structure of claim 38.

Motivation: the specification's own stated advantages — a "smooth, non-bulky, and breathable joint," elimination of "thick seams" that cause pressure and inhibit air transfer, and prevention of fraying — are the very advantages the admitted Bemis art was already known to deliver. Under KSR, using a known technique (heat-seal tape) to achieve its known benefit (stitchless, non-fraying textile joins) in an analogous footwear structure is obvious.

Ground 4 — Meschter '295 (alone or with Glidden): the "different stitch configuration / laser-formed zone" dependents

Meschter '295's stratified material with an incised layer over a more-stretchable substrate teaches forming zonal structural differences in a footwear upper by a non-stitching process (laser). This reinforces Grounds 1–3 for any claim requiring regions of differing structure, and it is the natural secondary reference for the FIG. 4 opening-formation procedure described in the specification (adhesive surrounding the intended opening, then die/laser cutting).

---

6. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

• No unexpected results are argued in the specification. The specification asserts only known benefits: eliminating a stitched seam "eliminates potential areas of abrasion," a thinner seam is more comfortable than a thick sewn seam, and adhesive prevents fraying. (KSR step: advantages must be "unexpected" to rebut; these are not.)
• Commercial success (Flyknit) could be asserted by a patent owner, but the nexus would have to run to the specific claimed geometry (the forefoot + lateral-midfoot rib arrangement with a smooth zone at the sole junction). The '032 patent (priority 2005) is not the product of the commercial Flyknit launch (2012); a nexus argument would be difficult.
• Litigation history is not probative of validity. The D. Mass. court's denial of Puma's §101 abstract-idea motion (Nike, Inc. v. PUMA North America, Inc., 1:18-cv-10876-LTS) says nothing about §103. The case settled and was dismissed (reported ~2020-01-13), so no validity judgment exists. I found no institution decision, final written decision, or court holding on validity of the '032 patent — so there is no adjudicated presumption-of-validity overlay to contend with.

---

7. Honest weaknesses in the §103 case — and where the novelty actually lives

I do not want to overstate this. Two features resist the grounds above:

1. The precise gap geometry of claim 1/16. No reference I verified teaches a non-ribbed second region that runs along the sole junction and between the forefoot rib portion and the lateral-midfoot rib portion on the lateral midfoot side. Glidden's densified zones are at the toe and heel, and its ribs at the ankle. This specific spatial arrangement — which is the limitation Nike appears to have relied on (it is what was asserted against Puma's IGNITE Proknit/Speed Netfit/Mostro Bubble Knit/Jamming) — is plausibly the point of novelty. A petitioner would need either (a) a reference placing a stability/rib structure on the lateral midfoot side above the lasting margin, or (b) expert testimony establishing a design incentive (pronation control at the arch + flexibility required at the lasting margin) sufficient to render the arrangement predictable rather than inventive. I could not verify such a reference from the face-of-patent art.

2. "Integrally formed in the knitted textile material" is doing real work. Glidden's "changing the type of stitch" is a strong disclosure, but a patent owner will argue that Glidden's densification is for wear resistance at the toe/heel, not for stability ribs at the arch, and that the reference teaches away from placing a stiff/dense knit at the midfoot (since Glidden associates density with "lower elasticity" at high-wear locations). The counter is that the claim's own specification treats "stability" and "densification" as interchangeable and admits the placement criterion is anatomical and conventional.

3. §102 date hygiene. Because so much of the cited art is publication-dated rather than issued, the petitioner must establish dates under pre-AIA §102(e) for Dua '592 (published 2005-09-08, after the 2005-07-29 priority date) and Bevier '257 (issued 2006-02-21). Those references are only available as art on their filing dates. Bowerman '750, Glidden '197, Zaino '967, Boggia '098, Brown '158, Cass '376, Meschter '295, Burris '023, and Dua '284 are clean §102(b) art.

4. §325(d). As noted in §1, essentially all of this art is face-of-patent art. An IPR petitioner would need to show material examiner error, or use art and argument combinations the Examiner did not consider.

---

8. Bottom line

Claim 16 is the most vulnerable claim. Its "enhanced stability structures" term is broad enough that Glidden's densely knit toe/heel regions alone satisfy it, and Glidden + Zaino/Dua '592 supplies the lateral-midfoot element.

Claim 1 is obvious but at the margins. Glidden + Dua '592 (or Zaino/Brown/Boggia) + the design incentives furnished by anatomy and lasting practice renders it reasonably likely obvious under KSR, but the specific gap geometry is the genuine point of novelty, and the record I have does not include a reference that places a stability structure specifically on the lateral midfoot side or that expressly teaches the "second region between the two rib portions along the sole junction" arrangement.

The stitchless claims (15, 34, 35, 38) are the weakest claims in the patent from a validity standpoint, because the specification admits that Bemis thermoplastic seam tapes were commercially available, applied by taping machines, used to replace stitching and to prevent fraying of the very textile materials at issue. Combining that admission with Dua '592 or Bowerman (two-layer upper) and Meschter '295 (laser cutting) makes these claims difficult to defend.

Confidence levels:

• High: content of Glidden '197, Bowerman '750, and the admitted Bemis art; the issued claim set (1–38); the identity of all face-of-patent references.
• Medium: Dua '592's regional-texture disclosure (verified only through PTAB petition excerpts describing the reference, not from the document itself); the §102(e) availability of Dua '592 and Bevier '257.
• Low / not verified: the substance of Cass '376, Burris '023, and Bevier '257 — I retrieved only their bibliographic data. My analysis of them is deliberately omitted rather than guessed. If these references bear on zonal knit structure or stitchless joins, they could materially strengthen Grounds 1 and 3; a USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier pull of the full texts is the appropriate next step.

---

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7637032/en; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7637032; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US2147197A](/patent/US2147197A)/en; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3793750A](/patent/US3793750A)/en; https://natlawreview.com/article/abstract-idea-defense-patent-infringement-suit-jumped-shark-nike-v-puma; https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/25/nike-sues-puma-infringement-patents-covering-nikes-flyknit-air-cleat-technologies/; PTAB petition papers citing Advanced Bionics and the Dua '592 / Glidden / McDonald / Horii / Calderone references (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556912](/patent/1556912)/...; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556902](/patent/1556902)/...); https://www.knobbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nike-v-Puma-MAD-18cv10876-complaint.pdf