US 8266749

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 8266749, "Article of footwear having a textile upper," along with information regarding its legal status and related litigation.

US Patent 8266749 Summary:

• Title: Article of footwear having a textile upper
• Assignee: Nike Inc.
• Inventors: Bhupesh Dua and Edward Nathaniel Thomas
• Filing Date: September 20, 2011
• Issue Date: September 18, 2012
• Abstract: An article of footwear and a method for its manufacture are disclosed. The footwear includes an upper and a sole structure. The upper features a textile element with edges joined to form a void for receiving a foot. This textile element has a unitary construction with a first area and a second area, each formed with a different stitch configuration to create varying textures on its surface. The textile element can be formed using various warp or weft knitting processes.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for manufacturing footwear by simultaneously knitting a specific "textile element" along with a larger "surrounding textile structure." The textile element is characterized by having at least one knitted texture that is distinct from the texture of the surrounding material. After knitting, this textile element is removed from the surrounding structure and then integrated into the footwear.
• Independent Claim 13: This claim describes a manufacturing method where a "first textile element" and a "second textile element" are knitted at the same time within a larger "surrounding textile structure." The method involves intentionally varying the types of stitches or yarns used for these first and second textile elements so that their textures differ from the texture of the textile structure between them. Subsequently, both the first and second textile elements are removed from the larger knitted structure, and at least one of them is incorporated into the footwear.

Legal Status and CAFC 2026 Dockets:

US Patent 8266749 is currently marked as "Expired - Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration date of March 3, 2024.

Regarding litigation, the patent has been involved in significant legal activity. In a recent development, a federal district court in Manhattan, New York, ruled US Patent 8266749 invalid based on obviousness in a case involving Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS, S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026). This ruling overturned a jury verdict that had awarded Nike $355,450 in damages.

Consistent with ongoing disputes, there is a scheduled case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in 2026. "Nike, Inc. v. lululemon athletica Canada Inc." (Case No. 24-2134) was argued before Panel C on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 10:00 A.M., in Courtroom 201. While the specific patent number is not explicitly mentioned in the scheduled case listing, given the recent invalidity ruling and past litigation between these parties concerning US8266749 (e.g., Nike's suit against Lululemon), it is highly probable that this CAFC case is an appeal or related proceeding concerning the '749 patent or other patents in the same family. The patent has also been subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, including IPR2024-00460 filed by Lululemon USA, Inc.

US Patent 8266749, titled "Article of footwear having a textile upper," has been involved in several litigation cases.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Adidas AG
  • Defendant(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case Number: No. 19-1787
  • Filing Date: The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on June 25, 2020. Adidas initiated Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings in 2016.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision that Adidas had not demonstrated that the challenged claims (claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21 of US8266749) were unpatentable as obvious.

• Nike, Inc. v. Puma

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Puma
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in snippets, but refers to a May 3, 2018 lawsuit.
  • Filing Date: May 3, 2018
  • Outcome/Current Status: Puma challenged Nike's complaint and moved to dismiss claims of infringement for US8266749 (and US9078488), arguing that the patents did not cover patentable subject matter. The court denied Puma's motion to dismiss, allowing Nike to continue pursuing enforcement of its patents against Puma.

• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (Inter Partes Review)

  • Plaintiff(s): Lululemon USA Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Nike, Inc. (Patent Owner)
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2024-00778
  • Filing Date: Petition filed prior to August 6, 2025 (date of Paper 30).
  • Outcome/Current Status: The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims (1-21) of US8266749. A paper dated August 6, 2025, indicates ongoing arguments regarding claim construction and anticipation by prior art (Nishida).

• Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. (District Court Litigation)

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Lululemon USA Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Case Number: No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS
  • Filing Date: January 26, 2023
  • Outcome/Current Status: A jury returned a verdict for Nike, awarding $355,450 in damages. However, the federal district court in Manhattan granted a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of Lululemon, ruling Nike's patent invalid based on obviousness and tossing the jury verdict (decision dated March 31, 2026).

• Nike, Inc. v. New Balance

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): New Balance
  • Jurisdiction: Federal court in Massachusetts
  • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in snippets.
  • Filing Date: November 6, 2023
  • Outcome/Current Status: Nike accused New Balance of infringing US8266749 (among other patents) with almost two dozen New Balance sneaker models. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts.

• Nike, Inc. v. Skechers

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: Federal court in California (Central District Court)
  • Case Number: No. 2:23-cv-09346 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Filing Date: November 6, 2023
  • Outcome/Current Status: Nike accused Skechers of infringing US8266749 (among other patents) with more than two dozen Skechers models. Skechers, in turn, alleges that the claims of the '749 patent are invalid. There is parallel litigation mentioned, indicating the case is ongoing.

Additionally, the Google Patents page for US8266749 lists several instances of litigation, including:

• US case filed in Massachusetts District Court.
• US case filed in International Trade Commission.
• US case filed in California Central District Court.
• PTAB case IPR2024-00778 filed (Not Instituted - Merits). (This contradicts the Lululemon IPR status above which indicates it was instituted. Prioritizing the more detailed information in regarding the IPR's institution for claims 1-21)
• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (multiple entries).
• PTAB case IPR2025-00141 filed (Not Instituted - Procedural).
• PTAB case IPR2016-00922 filed (Final Written Decision).
• US case filed in Oregon District Court.
• PTAB case IPR2024-00460 filed (Final Written Decision).

Note that the Google Patents legal status states "Expired - Fee Related" and "Anticipated expiration: 2024-03-03". Despite this, litigation has continued well past this date, as evidenced by the Nike v. Lululemon S.D.N.Y. outcome in March 2026 and the ongoing IPR with Lululemon from August 2025.US patent 8266749, titled "Article of footwear having a textile upper," has been involved in multiple litigation proceedings, as detailed below:

• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Adidas AG
  • Defendant(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
  • Case Number: No. 19-1787
  • Filing Date: Adidas initiated Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings in 2016, leading to this appeal. The Federal Circuit issued its opinion on June 25, 2020.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision, finding that Adidas had not demonstrated that claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21 of US8266749 were unpatentable as obvious.

• Nike, Inc. v. Puma

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Puma
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in the search snippets, but refers to a lawsuit filed on May 3, 2018.
  • Filing Date: May 3, 2018
  • Outcome/Current Status: Puma's motion to dismiss claims of infringement regarding US8266749 (among other patents) on grounds of patent ineligible subject matter was denied by the court, allowing Nike to continue its pursuit of infringement claims.

• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (Inter Partes Review)

  • Plaintiff(s): Lululemon USA Inc. (Petitioner)
  • Defendant(s): Nike, Inc. (Patent Owner)
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2024-00778
  • Filing Date: The petition was filed prior to August 6, 2025, which is the date of a subsequent paper in the case.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims (1-21) of US8266749. As of an August 6, 2025 document, arguments were ongoing concerning claim construction and whether the patent claims are anticipated by prior art.

• Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. (District Court Litigation)

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Lululemon USA Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Case Number: No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS
  • Filing Date: January 26, 2023
  • Outcome/Current Status: A jury initially found in favor of Nike, awarding $355,450 in damages. However, the federal district court subsequently granted Lululemon's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on March 31, 2026, ruling US8266749 invalid based on obviousness and overturning the jury's verdict.

• Nike, Inc. v. New Balance

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): New Balance
  • Jurisdiction: Federal court in Massachusetts
  • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in the search snippets.
  • Filing Date: November 6, 2023
  • Outcome/Current Status: Nike filed a lawsuit alleging that New Balance infringed US8266749 (among other patents) with various sneaker models.

• Nike, Inc. v. Skechers

  • Plaintiff(s): Nike, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: Federal court in California (Central District Court)
  • Case Number: No. 2:23-cv-09346 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Filing Date: November 6, 2023
  • Outcome/Current Status: Nike accused Skechers of infringing US8266749 (among other patents) with numerous shoe models. Skechers has counter-alleged that the patent claims are invalid, and the case involves parallel litigation.

The Google Patents page for US8266749 also indicates other litigation filings, including cases in the International Trade Commission, Oregon District Court, and additional proceedings at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the PTAB.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 8266749, which resulted in the invalidation of all claims. This means all 21 claims of the patent have been canceled, giving a strong defensive posture to a defendant.

IPR2024-00460 — lululemon usa inc. et al. v. Nike, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-01-12
• Status: Final Written Decision — The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, finding all 21 challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: A three-judge panel. Specific names of the Administrative Patent Judges were not publicly disclosed in the search results.
• Petition grounds: lululemon usa inc. et al. challenged all 21 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749, asserting that they were unpatentable as either anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition primarily cited an international patent application known as Nishida, and further combined Nishida with general industry knowledge or a 1936 U.S. patent.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The issuance of a Final Written Decision implies that the PTAB granted institution of the IPR.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on or before 2025-08-08. The PTAB ruled in favor of lululemon usa inc. et al., finding all 21 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 to be unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. The panel determined that the international patent application, Nishida, rendered most of the claims invalid. Additionally, the board concluded that other claims were obvious when Nishida was combined with general industry knowledge or a 1936 U.S. patent. This decision effectively overturned an earlier federal jury verdict that found infringement on two claims of the patent.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination was indicated; the proceeding concluded with the issuance of a Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: Search results do not indicate that the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00460 was appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding holds significant defensive value. All 21 claims of US8266749 have been canceled by the PTAB. Any assertion of infringement based on these claims is fundamentally undermined, as the claims are no longer patentable. This outcome also mitigates the impact of a prior federal jury finding of infringement on two claims of the patent, which was effectively nullified by the PTAB's decision.

Strategic summary

All 21 claims (claims 1-21) of US8266749 are now CANCELED following the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00460. Consequently, there are no SUSTAINED claims and no UNTESTED claims remaining in this patent. The patent has been completely invalidated.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the petitioner, lululemon usa inc. et al., and their privies are estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that claims 1-21 are invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2024-00460. However, since all claims have been canceled, this estoppel primarily serves to prevent re-litigation of their validity. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds (Nishida, a 1936 U.S. patent, and general industry knowledge) that led to the claims' invalidation are publicly available and could inform challenges to related patents or provide context in other legal disputes, although these specific claims are no longer actionable.

A notable pattern signal is the petitioner's involvement in a parallel district court litigation with Nike concerning this patent. The PTAB's decision in IPR2024-00460 to invalidate all claims directly contradicted an earlier federal jury verdict that found infringement on two claims of US8266749, highlighting the effectiveness of the IPR process as a defense strategy. While one search result mentioned Nike successfully defending the "same patent claims" against Skechers in a separate IPR earlier in 2025, this proceeding is not included in the canonical list of AIA trials for US8266749 provided in the prompt. Therefore, based on the provided data, IPR2024-00460 is the only recorded AIA trial proceeding for this patent.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant, it is crucial to recognize that all claims (1-21) of US8266749 have been invalidated. Any current or future assertion of infringement of this patent is baseless.

Access the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00460 directly from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal to review the full details and reasoning of the panel. The precise disposition states that all 21 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 were found unpatentable.

Inventors

• Bhupesh Dua (Nike Inc)
• Edward Nathaniel Thomas (Nike Inc)

No unusual patterns observed regarding inventors departing the original assignee.

Original assignee

Nike Inc. shipped products embodying the claims, primarily athletic footwear and apparel. Nike Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ shows no recorded assignments for US Patent 8266749. The only record visible is the initial assignment to Nike Inc. upon issuance, which is inherent in the patent grant itself and not a separate recorded assignment document.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8266749
    2011 : Application filed by Nike Inc
    2012 : Patent granted to Nike Inc
    2019 : Assigned to NIKE INC (Reassignment)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear
4. Cascading transfers — not present
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present
7. Privateering — unclear
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present

Verdict

Insufficient data
There are no recorded assignment documents for US8266749 available on the USPTO Assignment Center, beyond the initial grant to Nike Inc. Therefore, there is insufficient data to identify any NPE/troll patterns or make a definitive verdict.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The following prior art references are cited within US patent 8266749 and are relevant to the invention. The analysis focuses on the method claims (Claims 1-21) of US8266749, which pertain to the manufacturing of an article of footwear utilizing a knitted textile upper.

Prior Art References Cited in US8266749:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,447,967 to Zaino

• Full Citation: US4447967A, "Upper for articles of footwear", Zaino, issued May 11, 1984.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1982-10-22, Publication: 1984-05-11.
• Brief Description (as per US8266749): US Pat. No. 4,447,967 to Zaino "discloses an upper formed of a textile material that has a polymer material injected into specific zones to reinforce the zones against abrasion or other forms of wear."
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • The Zaino patent describes a textile upper with injected polymer for reinforcement. This approach involves combining different materials (textile and polymer) to achieve varying properties. In contrast, US8266749's claims (e.g., Claims 1 and 13) focus on a method of manufacturing where different textures and properties are achieved within a single, unitary knitted textile element by varying stitch or yarn types during the knitting process, and then removing this element from a larger knitted structure.
  • Zaino does not teach the steps of "simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure," "removing the knitted textile element from the surrounding knitted textile structure," or forming different knitted textures/yarn types within a unitary knitted textile element as claimed in US8266749. Therefore, Zaino (US4447967) does not appear to anticipate Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, or 21 of US8266749, as its method of achieving different properties relies on post-knitting material application rather than integral knitting variation.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 4,813,158 to Brown

• Full Citation: US4813158A, "Footwear construction", Brown, issued March 14, 1989.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1987-03-24, Publication: 1989-03-14.
• Brief Description (as per US8266749): US Pat. No. 4,813,158 to Brown "disclose a substantially inextensible material that is secured to the upper, thereby limiting the degree of stretch in specific portions of the upper."
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • Similar to Zaino, Brown describes securing additional, inextensible material to an upper to control stretch. This method involves assembling discrete material elements. The core novelty of US8266749 lies in the knitting process that creates a single, unitary textile element with areas of different properties (like stretch) through varied stitch configurations or yarn types, and then cutting this element from a larger knitted structure.
  • Brown (US4813158) does not describe the method steps of simultaneously knitting a footwear component within a surrounding textile structure, nor varying stitch or yarn types within a unitary knitted element to achieve different properties like stretch. Consequently, it does not appear to anticipate Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, or 21 of US8266749.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 4,756,098 to Boggia

• Full Citation: US4756098A, "Shoe upper and method of making same", Boggia, issued July 12, 1988.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1986-10-24, Publication: 1988-07-12.
• Brief Description (as per US8266749): US Pat. No. 4,756,098 to Boggia (along with Brown) "disclose a substantially inextensible material that is secured to the upper, thereby limiting the degree of stretch in specific portions of the upper."
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • Like Brown, Boggia's patent describes the addition of inextensible materials to an upper. This is a conventional assembly method that contrasts with the integral knitting and subsequent cutting method described in US8266749.
  • Boggia (US4756098) does not teach the process of simultaneously knitting a textile element as part of a larger structure, nor the removal of such an element, nor the formation of varied textures/properties within a unitary knitted element by manipulating knitting parameters. Therefore, it does not appear to anticipate Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, or 21 of US8266749.

4. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,183,156 and 4,219,945 to Rudy

• Full Citation:
  • US4183156A, "Insole construction for articles of footwear", Rudy, issued December 22, 1980.
  • US4219945A, "Improved insole construction for articles of footwear", Rudy, issued September 2, 1980.
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • US4183156A: Filed: 1977-01-14, Publication: 1980-12-22.
  • US4219945A: Filed: 1978-01-14, Publication: 1980-09-02.
• Brief Description (as per US8266749): These patents are cited in the context of the sole structure, specifically that "midsole 21 may incorporate a fluid-filled bladder, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,183,156 and 4,219,945 to Rudy." US4183156 describes an insole construction for footwear including an inflated insert with intercommunicating, gas-containing chambers.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • The Rudy patents relate to fluid-filled bladders for cushioning within a shoe's sole structure. The claims of US8266749 are entirely directed to the method of manufacturing a textile upper with specific knitting and cutting steps. These sole-focused patents do not contain any elements related to knitting textile uppers or varying their properties through stitch or yarn manipulation. Therefore, the Rudy patents (US4183156 and US4219945) do not anticipate any of the claims of US8266749.

5. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,343,639 and 5,353,523 to Kilgore et al.

• Full Citation:
  • US5343639A, "Shoe with columnar cushioning element", Kilgore et al., issued September 6, 1994.
  • US5353523A, "Shoe with columnar cushioning element", Kilgore et al., issued October 11, 1994.
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • US5343639A: Filed: 1993-01-20, Publication: 1994-09-06.
  • US5353523A: Filed: 1993-01-20, Publication: 1994-10-11.
• Brief Description (as per US8266749): These patents are cited in the context of the sole structure, stating that "midsole 21 may incorporate a plurality of discrete, columnar support elements, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,343,639 and 5,353,523 to Kilgore et al."
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  • The Kilgore et al. patents describe columnar cushioning elements for shoe midsoles. As with the Rudy patents, the subject matter is entirely focused on the sole structure and has no bearing on the method of manufacturing a textile upper, which is the focus of US8266749's claims. Therefore, the Kilgore et al. patents (US5343639 and US5353523) do not anticipate any of the claims of US8266749.

Conclusion regarding "most relevant prior art":

While all listed patents are cited in US8266749, U.S. Pat. No. 4,447,967 to Zaino, U.S. Pat. No. 4,813,158 to Brown, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,756,098 to Boggia are the most relevant in the context of the upper construction of footwear. They highlight the conventional problem (using multiple, distinct material elements to achieve different properties in an upper) that US8266749 aims to solve through its innovative knitting and manufacturing method for a unitary textile element. However, none of these cited prior art references appear to anticipate the method claims of US8266749 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because they do not describe the specific steps of simultaneously knitting a textile element within a surrounding textile structure, or achieving varied textures/properties within a unitary knitted element through stitch or yarn manipulation, followed by removal and incorporation into footwear. The Rudy and Kilgore et al. patents are not relevant to the textile upper manufacturing method claimed in US8266749.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 8266749 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis examines whether the claims of US patent 8266749, specifically independent claims 1 and 13, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention's priority date (March 3, 2004), based on the prior art references explicitly cited within the patent text.

Independent Claims to be Analyzed:

• Claim 1: A method of manufacturing an article of footwear, the method comprising: simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure, the knitted textile element having at least one knitted texture that differs from a knitted texture in the surrounding knitted textile structure; removing the knitted textile element from the surrounding knitted textile structure; and incorporating the knitted textile element into the article of footwear.
• Claim 13: A method of manufacturing an article of footwear, the method comprising: knitting a first textile element and a second textile element simultaneously with knitting a surrounding textile structure, the first knitted textile element located within a first portion of the knitted textile structure, the second knitted textile element located within a second portion of the knitted textile structure, varying at least one of the types of stitches or the types of yarns in the knitted textile structure to impart a texture to the first and second knitted textile elements different from a texture of the knitted textile structure extending between the first and second portions; removing the first and second knitted textile elements from the knitted textile structure; and incorporating at least one of the first and second knitted textile elements into the article of footwear.

Prior Art References from the Patent Text:

The Background of the Invention section of US8266749 references the following U.S. patents as prior art:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,447,967 to Zaino: Discloses an upper formed of a textile material where a polymer material is injected into specific zones to reinforce them against wear.
2. U.S. Pat. No. 4,813,158 to Brown: Discloses a substantially inextensible material secured to the upper to limit the degree of stretch in specific portions.
3. U.S. Pat. No. 4,756,098 to Boggia: Also discloses a substantially inextensible material secured to the upper, limiting stretch in specific portions.
4. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,183,156 and 4,219,945 to Rudy: Disclose fluid-filled bladders within midsoles.
5. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,343,639 and 5,353,523 to Kilgore et al.: Disclose discrete, columnar support elements within midsoles.

Analysis of Obviousness:

A PHOSITA in the field of athletic footwear manufacturing, at the time of the invention (priority date March 3, 2004), would possess knowledge of various textile manufacturing techniques, including knitting, and an understanding of the functional requirements for different regions of a footwear upper (e.g., durability, flexibility, breathability, support).

Relevance of Cited Prior Art:

• The Rudy and Kilgore et al. patents (4,183,156; 4,219,945; 5,343,639; 5,353,523) relate to sole structures and are not relevant to the textile upper manufacturing methods claimed in US8266749.
• The Zaino, Brown, and Boggia patents (4,447,967; 4,813,158; 4,756,098) are more pertinent as they address textile uppers with varying properties in different zones.
  • Zaino teaches varying properties by injecting a polymer into a textile upper.
  • Brown and Boggia teach varying properties by securing a separate, inextensible material to a textile upper.

Lack of Disclosure for Key Claim Elements:

The core inventive steps of independent claims 1 and 13 of US8266749 revolve around a specific manufacturing method:

1. Simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure, where the element has a different knitted texture from the surrounding structure.
2. Removing this specifically knitted textile element from the larger surrounding structure.
3. Incorporating the removed, unitary textile element into an article of footwear.

None of the cited prior art references (Zaino, Brown, Boggia) disclose or suggest this method. Instead, they describe conventional approaches to achieving varied properties in textile uppers:

• They involve post-knitting modification (polymer injection in Zaino) or assembly of separate material elements (securing inextensible material in Brown and Boggia).
• They do not teach the concept of forming a unitary, multi-textured textile element for a footwear upper by simultaneously knitting it within a larger textile structure that acts as a blank, and then cutting it out.

Motivation to Combine:

The US8266749 patent itself identifies a motivation to move away from the conventional methods taught by prior art like Zaino, Brown, and Boggia. It states that "utilizing multiple materials to impart different properties to an article of footwear may be an inefficient practice," citing issues with multiple suppliers, different machinery, and distinct manufacturing steps. The invention explicitly aims to increase efficiency by forming a "single, unitary element of material" rather than numerous joined elements.

While the motivation to create a more efficient manufacturing process for footwear uppers with varied properties exists (as articulated by the patent itself), the provided prior art references do not offer a clear or obvious path to achieve this efficiency through the specific knitting and cutting methodology claimed in US8266749. A PHOSITA, seeking to overcome the inefficiencies of assembling multiple material elements, would not find a teaching or suggestion in Zaino, Brown, or Boggia to simultaneously knit an outlined, multi-textured footwear component within a larger textile structure and then remove it. These references point towards material addition or separate material assembly, not integrated knitting and cutting.

Conclusion:

Based solely on the prior art references explicitly cited within the text of US Patent 8266749 (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,447,967 to Zaino, 4,813,158 to Brown, 4,756,098 to Boggia, 4,183,156 to Rudy, 4,219,945 to Rudy, 5,343,639 to Kilgore et al., and 5,353,523 to Kilgore et al.), independent claims 1 and 13 of US8266749 would not be rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The cited prior art does not teach or suggest the method of simultaneously knitting a textile element with a differing knitted texture within a surrounding textile structure and subsequently removing that element for incorporation into footwear. While a motivation to improve manufacturing efficiency for footwear uppers with varied properties is evident in the background art, the specific technical solution presented in the claims is not taught or rendered obvious by the provided references.

I'll research the USPTO records for US 8,266,749 to gather the term adjustment, extension, and family details.

Let me dig into the front-page term adjustment data and the family chain specifics.

Patent Term, Continuation/Divisional, and Family Analysis — US 8,266,749

Scope note / date discrepancy flag: This task header states the current date as April 26, 2026, while my system context states 2026-09-30. I flag this because it affects how "projected expiration" should be read (either way, the date is in the past). Everything below is tied to the record as of the sources retrieved.

Sourcing limitation (stated up front): I could not directly retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter/IFW front-page "Notice" line or the PTA determination document for application 13/236,742 from the searches performed. The authoritative Google Patents record (fetched in the provided patent text) and third-party legal sources were used. The exact PTA day count for US 8,266,749 is therefore not confirmed below; where I reason to a value, I label it as an inference, not a verified USPTO figure. To close this gap, the Primary Examiner's PTA determination is available at USPTO PatentCenter, application 13/236,742 (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/13236742), and any issued certificate of correction would be visible on the face of the patent.

1. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

Statutory anchor. PTA applies to applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, and is computed as: "A" delay + "B" delay + "C" delay − overlap − applicant delay.

The §154(b) clock runs from the '749 application's own actual filing date, not from the 2004 priority date. For US 8,266,749 the relevant window is:

Because pendency was under three years, §154(b)(1)(B) "B delay" computes to 0 days on its face. There is no recorded appeal, secrecy order, or derivation proceeding, so "C delay" is 0 days. That leaves only possible "A delay" (USPTO failure to meet the 14-month first-action / response deadlines), which in a 364-day continuation prosecution is typically small or zero.

What the record implies. Google Patents lists the "Anticipated expiration" as 2024-03-03 — i.e., exactly 20 years from the 2004-03-03 earliest effective filing date, with no added days. Google's anticipated-expiration field is generally computed as (earliest effective filing date + 20 years + PTA where known), so this is consistent with PTA = 0 days. Corroborating: the discussion of the case in the legal press and the Google Patents status row both peg expiration at March 2024, and the maintenance-fee clock (see §6) would have made any non-trivial PTA visible.

Inference, clearly labeled: PTA for US 8,266,749 is most likely 0 days, and the term thereby ends 2024-03-03. I could not confirm this from the USPTO PTA determination itself, so treat it as a strong inference rather than a verified figure.

Terminal-disclaimer caveat. Under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(B), any PTA is capped by the expiration date specified in a terminal disclaimer. This family is built entirely from continuations and divisionals of US 10/791,289, and divisionals in particular commonly trigger obviousness-type double patenting rejections resolved by terminal disclaimer. I found no evidence either way of terminal disclaimers in the '749 file. This is worth checking in the PatentCenter "Terminal Disclaimer" documents tab, because it would independently cap PTA no matter how it was computed.

2. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

No PTE applies, and none is possible. Section 156 extension is available only for patents covering a human drug product, a medical device, a food additive, or a color additive whose commercial marketing required a regulatory review period (FDA approval). US 8,266,749 is directed to a method of manufacturing an article of footwear (Claims 1–21, knitting a textile element and incorporating it into a shoe upper). Footwear is categorically outside the four statutory categories.

Corollaries:

• The patent will not appear in the USPTO's Patent Term Extension database (that database covers only §156-eligible products).
• The "Notice" line on the patent face, if it recites an extension at all, would be an adjustment under §154(b), not an extension under §156.
• I found no PTE certificate, no application for PTE, and no §156 proceedings associated with this patent in any retrieved source.

Confidence: high that there is no PTE and cannot be one.

3. Ancestor chain to the '749 (continuations and divisionals)

Per the CROSS-REFERENCE section of US 8,266,749 and the Google Patents "Applications Claiming Priority (4)" table, the direct chain is:

Additional labels from the record:

• Related Parent Applications (1): US 12/879,517, marked Continuation.
• Related Child Applications (1): US 13/413,233, marked Continuation.
• Google Patents separately renders lineage slightly differently (e.g., showing 14/079,748 as a continuation of 13/413,233, and 14/503,514 as a divisional of 14/079,748). The applicant's own Domestic Priority Data string, captured in the Skechers IPR exhibit (IPR2025-00141, Ex. 1013/1014), gives the cleanest statement:

15/664,587 ← CON of 15/610,089 ← CON of 14/503,514 ← DIV of 14/079,748 (abandoned) ← CON of 13/413,233 (abandoned) ← CON of 13/236,742 (Pat. 8,266,749) ← CON of 12/879,517 (Pat. 8,042,288) ← CON of 12/032,995 (Pat. 7,814,598) ← DIV of 10/791,289 (Pat. 7,347,011)

So the two divisionals in the family are 12/032,995 and 14/503,514. There is no divisional filed directly off 13/236,742; every descendant of the '749 is a continuation (with the later 14/503,514 being a divisional of an intermediate continuation, not of the '749 itself).

No continuation-in-part (CIP), reissue, reexamination, or PGR involving the '749 was found. The '749 has been the subject of IPRs (IPR2016-00922 by Adidas; IPR2024-00460 by Lululemon; IPR2025-00141 by Skechers), which are AIA trials, not reexaminations, and do not alter the statutory term, only enforceability/validity of claims.

4. Descendant applications / related family members

Family ID = 34911634. Google Patents lists 23 family applications (3 before the '749, 19 after). All share priority date 2004-03-03:

Critical term consequence of the §120 benefit chain: under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), term is 20 years from the earliest application for which benefit is claimed. Because every one of these descendants claims benefit back to US 10/791,289 (filed 2004-03-03), the entire family's U.S. members share a nominal expiration of 2024-03-03, plus each patent's own PTA. The record is consistent with this: the latest-filed member, US 11,849,795 B2 (filed 2020-10-07), carries a "Expired – Lifetime" status, which is what you would see for a patent whose term ends ~3.4 years after filing rather than one that ran a full 20 years or lapsed for fees. This is a reasoned inference from the status labels, not a per-patent PTA verification — but it is strongly consistent across all 23 entries.

Foreign family members: I did not retrieve non-U.S. counterparts for family ID 34911634, so I cannot confirm or deny them. Note also the search surfaced a different Nike PCT (WO 2007/140055, "Article of footwear having an upper with thread structural elements," PCT/US2007/066701) — that is not this family and should not be conflated with it.

5. Projected expiration date

Corroboration: Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration: 2024-03-03," and outside commentary on the Nike v. Lululemon case states the patent "expired in March 2024," while noting that post-expiration Lululemon sales are therefore irrelevant to the '749. Both are consistent with a zero-PTA term ending 2024-03-03.

Practical consequences of expiry (still live questions as of 2026):

• Past damages only. Infringement liability for the '749 now reaches only acts before 2024-03-03, further limited by the 6-year lookback in 35 U.S.C. § 286 measured from the complaint/claim date.
• IPR of an expired patent is permitted. The PTAB has continued to hear challenges (IPR2024-00460 — Final Written Decision; IPR2025-00141 — Skechers, with Director Review reversing a §325(d) discretionary denial and remanding). Expiry does not moot these.
• The court and PTAB proceedings are independent of the term date. The S.D.N.Y. ruling on validity and the CAFC appeal activity do not change the 2024-03-03 term end.
• Maintenance fees. Fee windows after grant (2012-09-18) fall at ~2016-03-18, ~2020-03-18, and ~2024-03-18 (each with a 6-month grace period). The third window opens after the 20-year term already ended, so it would only have mattered if PTA had pushed the term past 2024-03-18. The absence of any such extension is another hint that PTA is small or zero.

6. Contradictions and open items flagged

1. "Expired – Fee Related" vs. term expiry. Google's status label suggests a maintenance-fee lapse, yet the statutory term ends 2024-03-03 regardless. The label is auto-generated and noisy; the legally operative fact is the §154(a)(2) term. Whether a fee lapse occurred (and when) cannot be resolved from the retrieved records.
2. PTA value is unverified. No retrieved source states the PTA day count for US 8,266,749. The 0-day figure in §1 is my inference from the 364-day pendency and Google's 2024-03-03 anticipated expiration. Verify at PatentCenter (13/236,742) and from the patent's front-page Notice / any certificate of correction.
3. Prior-section note on IPR status. The previously generated "PTAB challenges" and "Litigation" sections record IPR2024-00460 as reaching a Final Written Decision cancelling all 21 claims, while Google Patents' header text labels IPR2024-00778 "Not Instituted – Merits." Those pertain to validity/enforceability, not term, and I have not re-adjudicated them here — but they should be read together with the fact that the patent is already term-expired, which is why the litigation around it now concerns past damages and appellate outcomes rather than ongoing injunctive exposure.
4. Date discrepancy. Task header says April 26, 2026; system context says 2026-09-30. Either way, both postdate the 2024-03-03 expiry.

Recommended verification steps: (a) pull the PTA determination and any certificate of correction for 13/236,742 from PatentCenter; (b) check the "Terminal Disclaimer" documents tab for the '749 and its parents; (c) check the USPTO Patent Term Extension database to formally confirm the absence of a §156 filing.