US 8898932

I'll verify the litigation/docket information with searches before compiling the summary.

Let me check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity and the ITC case.

Let me retrieve the actual claim text to ground the independent-claim summaries.

US Patent 8,898,932 B2 — Summary

Caveat on sourcing: The authoritative full text (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-30) was supplied for this patent, and it includes the specification, abstract, and figures list — but the verbatim claim set was not in the supplied text. The claim discussion below is therefore grounded in the patent's own "Summary" section (which mirrors the independent claims in this Nike family) plus documented third-party sources. Exact claim numbering beyond claim 11 is flagged where uncertain.

1. Bibliographic data

Classification highlights: A43B 1/04, A43B 23/0205, A43B 23/0265, D04B 1/10, D04B 1/22 (knitted footwear uppers).

2. Abstract (as issued)

An article of footwear has an upper and a sole structure secured to the upper. The upper includes a knitted component and, in some configurations, a skin layer secured to the knitted component. The knitted component may have a plurality of protruding areas that extend outward and away from a void within the upper for receiving a foot of a wearer. The protruding areas may include one or both of (a) a first tubular structure and an inlaid strand extending through the first tubular structure and (b) a second tubular structure and yarn sections extending across the second tubular structure.

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Based on the patent's Summary of the Invention, which states four independently claimed aspects (each likely corresponding to an independent claim):

(A) Article of footwear — knitted component with protruding areas. An upper with a knitted component whose surface has multiple "protruding areas" bulging outward, away from the foot-receiving void. Those bumps are made from one or both of: (a) a first tubular structure (two spaced knit layers with joined edges) with an inlaid strand running lengthwise through it; and/or (b) a second tubular structure with yarn sections running across its width (optionally crossing/tuck-stitched to its sides). A skin layer may additionally be secured over the knitted component. Purpose: three-dimensional loft on the upper, e.g., ball-control friction for soccer.

(B) Method of manufacturing an upper — differential-compressibility press bonding. Position a skin layer overlapping a knitted component that has regions of different thickness; place the assembly between a press's first and second surfaces, where the first surface material is more compressible than the second (e.g., silicone vs. steel, or two silicones of differing hardness/density/thickness); then compress so the skin layer bonds (thermally) to the knitted component. The more-compressible surface deforms at the thick protruding areas, preserving their three-dimensional shape in the finished upper while thinner regions of skin layer press in to a lesser depth.

(C) Article of footwear — foot region vs. ankle region with differential stretch. The upper is divided into a foot region (covering the foot, includes a "foot part" of the knitted component) and an ankle region (covering the ankle, includes an "ankle part"/ankle cuff of the knitted component). The two parts are unitary knit construction (one-piece knit). The foot region has a lower degree of stretch than the ankle region, so the ankle cuff grips/elastically conforms around the ankle (imparting debris exclusion and wearer proprioception) while the foot portion stays stable. Consistent with this, the skin layer may be absent from the ankle region (concave edge 141 around the malleoli).

(D) Article of footwear — lace channel in the throat area. A knitted component extends through the upper's throat area and defines a channel there comprising two overlapping knit layers of unitary knit construction (i.e., a tubular knit lace passage). Lace-receiving elements (e.g., exposed loops of the inlaid strand) sit on opposite sides of the throat area, with two of them adjacent the opposite ends of the channel, and a lace runs through the channel and engages those elements — so the lace follows its natural zigzag path without a separate tongue flap.

Numbering note: Documented sources confirm claims 11–15 were the claims challenged in IPR2025-00020, and the ITC complaint asserted claims 11, 12, 14 and 15. The IPR summary characterizes claims 11–15 as covering "an article of footwear having a knitted component with foot and ankle parts and a thermally bonded skin layer," which aligns with aspect (C) above. I cannot verify verbatim claim text or the full dependency map from the material at hand — treat precise claim numbering with moderate confidence only.

4. Litigation / PTAB record (verified)

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289, Certain Knitted Footwear — Nike complaint filed 2021-12-08 against adidas entities, asserting U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,918,511; 9,743,705; 8,266,749; 7,814,598; 9,060,562; and 8,898,932 (asserted '932 claims: 11, 12, 14, 15). Investigation instituted 2022-01-10/13; terminated in its entirety based on settlement, Commission decision 2022-09-21 (ALJ Order No. 17). Sources: USITC notice of institution; Federal Register termination notice.
• IPR2025-00020, New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. — petition filed 2024-11-05 challenging claims 11–15 of the '932 patent under §103; institution denied by the Board on 2025-06-09. Source: PTAB decision (Paper 7).
• *D. Mass. 1:23-cv-12666 (Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.)* — the '932 patent is one of nine asserted Nike knit patents (8,266,749; 8,898,932; 9,060,562; 9,510,636; 9,730,484; 9,907,350; 9,918,511; 9,924,758; 11,707,105). Partial motion to dismiss denied 2024-08-13. Source: D. Mass. order.
• D. Or. 3:21-cv-01780 — listed on Google Patents as a related district-court case.
• Federal Circuit (2026): I ran targeted searches for a CAFC docket in 2026 involving US 8,898,932 and found no results. I cannot confirm any pending or decided 2026 Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Note the well-known CAFC decisions in Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016), construed "flat knit edges" language from related patents (U.S. 7,347,011 / '350 / '511 / '758) — not the '932 patent's claims.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. I could not retrieve verbatim granted claim text; the "plain-language overview" paraphrases the patent's own Summary of the Invention and confirmed claim numbers (11–15) from the IPR/ITC records.
2. Google Patents labels the current assignee "Nike Inc"; separately, related Nike knit-family records sometimes list "Nike Innovate C.V." — I did not verify a present-day chain of title for the '932 specifically.
3. Expiration date (2033-07-17) is the source's own assumption tied to the parent 13/944,689 filing, not an authoritative PTO determination.
4. No 2026 CAFC activity was located; absence of search results is not proof that none exists.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8898932. Let me run several searches.

Good leads. Let me dig into the specific cases listed on the patent record.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,898,932 ("the '932 patent")

Important scoping note: I searched for the specific number 8,898,932 and filtered out results for look‑alike numbers (e.g., the '889, '890, '932 designations in unrelated pharma cases, and the many other Nike Flyknit patents). The '932 patent (application 14/273,574; priority Nov. 15, 2012; assignee Nike, Inc.) has been asserted in the following matters. I identify below which ones I could confirm and which are reported but not fully verified.

1. Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG — D. Or. No. 3:21‑cv‑01780

Nike asserted nine Flyknit patents against adidas's Primeknit footwear, including the '932 patent.

2. In the Matter of Certain Knitted Footwear — USITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1289

The '932 patent was expressly asserted — the Notice of Investigation covers claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the '932 patent, along with claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,918,511; 9,743,705; 8,266,749; 7,814,598; and 9,060,562.
Source: USITC notice (https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1289_notice01102022sgl.pdf).

3. Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. — D. Mass. No. 1:23‑cv‑12666‑JEK

The '932 patent is one of nine asserted patents ('749, '932, '562, '636, '484, '350, '511, '758, '105). Nike's complaint asserts independent claim 11 of the '932 patent against, inter alia, the New Balance Tekela v4 Pro Low FG soccer shoe (alleging a unitary knit foot part/ankle part of differing stretch).

4. New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. — PTAB IPR2025‑00020

This is the inter partes review New Balance filed after Nike served its infringement contentions in the Massachusetts case. Note: the Google Patents litigation listing for this PTAB case shows the petitioner field as sourced from "Unified Patents PTAB Data" (the data provider), while the PTAB case record identifies New Balance as petitioner.

5. Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. — C.D. Cal. No. 2:23‑cv‑09346 (reported; partially verified)

Note: Skechers separately filed five IPR petitions in this campaign (IPR2025‑00141, ‑00142, ‑00150, ‑00151, ‑00144) — but against the '749, '484, '562, '636, and '511 patents, not the '932 patent.

What I did not find (explicit gaps)

• No other district court or ITC case asserting the '932 patent beyond those above. The Google Patents "family has litigation" list for US 8,898,932 shows exactly four entries: ITC 337‑TA‑1289, IPR2025‑00020, D. Or. 3:21‑cv‑01780, and D. Mass. 1:23‑cv‑12666.
• No Federal Circuit appeal specifically arising from the '932 patent was identified. The frequently cited Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and the 2020 Federal Circuit Flyknit decisions concern different Nike patents (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 7,347,011 and the '749 patent), not the '932 patent. I could not confirm any appeal in which the '932 patent itself was construed or reviewed.
• No earlier adidas-filed IPR against the '932 patent was identified in my searches, though adidas filed multiple IPRs against other Nike Flyknit patents.
• Nike v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00771 (S.D.N.Y.) is part of the same Flyknit enforcement campaign but the record I reviewed ties it to the '749 and '484 patents (and related IPRs IPR2023‑01460, IPR2024‑00460); I found no indication the '932 patent is asserted there.

Caveats on dates/status

• Status statements reflect the most recent records retrieved in my searches (filings/documents through mid‑ and late‑2025). For the two live matters — Nike v. New Balance (1:23‑cv‑12666) and Nike v. Skechers (2:23‑cv‑09346) — docket activity may have occurred after my sources were captured. I cannot verify their status as of today, and I recommend a fresh PACER/RECAP check before relying on "pending" for either.
• The '932 patent's Google Patents page lists legal status "Active" with an anticipated expiration of 2033‑07‑17, but that status disclosure is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion.

If you want, I can do a follow‑up pull aimed specifically at the current dockets (PACER/RECAP) for the Massachusetts and Central District of California cases, and at the PTAB record for IPR2025‑00020, to nail down present‑day status.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings on this patent, starting with the one flagged in the litigation data and any others.

Key finding already: IPR2025-00020 was denied institution. Let me verify whether other petitioners (Skechers, adidas, lululemon) also challenged the '932 patent, and pull the institution decision detail.

PTAB Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 8,898,932 ("Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component")

Note on sourcing: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO ODP) contains no AIA trial records for the '932 patent, and the ODP ingest is stated to be current. However, the same block flags a litigation-linked PTAB entry (IPR2025-00020, "Not Instituted – Merits"), and web research confirms that proceeding exists and that the ODP has not indexed it. I therefore treat IPR2025-00020 as the one and only AIA trial on this patent, and I flag below that it is an ODP-indexing gap rather than a true absence. I found no other IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '932 patent. I was unable to retrieve the APJ panel names for the institution decision, so I do not state them.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on the '932 patent: 1 — status breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 1 institution denied (merits). The bottom line for a defendant: no claim of the '932 patent has ever been canceled, and no claim has ever been adjudicated by the Board on the merits — the sole challenger, New Balance, failed at the institution threshold on claims 11–15, so the patent remains fully intact but substantively untested at the PTAB. This is a "hardened-by-default, not hardened-by-adjudication" posture: Nike gets the practical benefit of a denied petition, but a future petitioner faces no § 315(e) estoppel, no adverse FWD findings, and no claim-construction precedent from the Board.

IPR2025-00020 — New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR)
• Filed: 2024-11-05 (per proceeding docket; Google Patents' litigation feed lists it as "PTAB case IPR2025-00020 filed")
• Status: Institution Denied — verbatim from the structured/PTAB-derived data: "Institution Denied"; Google Patents' feed glosses it as "Not Instituted - Merits" (i.e., a merits-based denial under § 314(a), not a discretionary Fintiv / § 325(d) denial). Institution decision entered 2025-06-09 (Paper 7).
• Judge panel: Not retrieved. The decision states it was made "acting on the designation of the Director" under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). I will not guess APJ names. (Counsel of record per the docket: Petitioner — Cipriano, Linnea et al.; Patent Owner — Harris, Michael et al.)
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 11–15 (the foot-region/ankle-region + thermally bonded skin-layer embodiment) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only. Combinations asserted: Becker with Dojan, Becker with Wildeman, and Farys in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. New Balance pre-emptively argued against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a), asserting the art was not before the Examiner and that the parallel district-court case was in its early stages. No anticipation (§ 102) or § 112 ground is reflected in the record I retrieved.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2025-06-09. Reasoning, quoted from the decision: "After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of claims 11-15. Accordingly, we deny the Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314." This is a substantive, merits-based finding that the § 103 combinations were insufficient — materially better for Nike than a Fintiv-style discretionary denial.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): None — no FWD issued. Because institution was denied, the Board never reached the merits of claims 11–15 and never canceled or confirmed any claim. Do not treat the denial as a holding that claims 11–15 are patentable; it is only a finding that New Balance did not meet the "reasonable likelihood" threshold on the art it presented. Claims 11–15, and every other claim of the '932 patent, remain untested by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: None. The proceeding terminated by denial of institution, not by settlement. No confidential settlement terms exist. (Termination date field: not disclosed in the sources retrieved.)
• Appeal: None, and none is available. A denial of institution under § 314(a) is not appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee). No Federal Circuit docket exists for this proceeding. There is therefore no CAFC opinion to cite.
• Related litigation: The '932 patent is in suit in Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-12666-JCB (D. Mass.), filed 2023-11-06, alongside eight other Nike Flyknit patents (U.S. 8,266,749; 9,060,562; 9,510,636; 9,730,484; 9,907,350; 9,918,511; 9,924,758; 11,707,105). The '932 patent is also asserted in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289, Certain Knitted Footwear (Nike v. adidas, instituted 2022-01-10, ALJ Monica Bhattacharyya).
• Defensive value: The one-shot challenge to claims 11–15 failed on the merits at the threshold and created no § 315(e) estoppel — New Balance is not barred from re-asserting the art (though a second petition on the same art would face § 325(d)/§ 314(a) headwinds and General Plastic serial-petition risk). For a new defendant: nothing is dead, nothing is adjudged valid, and there is no Board claim-construction or obviousness record to borrow. You would be litigating the '932's invalidity from scratch, meaning your IPR budget is a real cost rather than a discounted copy of someone else's win.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status. Canceled: none. Sustained by FWD: none. Untested: everything. The only claims ever put in front of the Board are claims 11–15, and the Board stopped them at the § 314(a) gate on 2025-06-09. There is no surviving-claim list to report because no claim was invalidated; conversely, there is no "adjudged patentable" list either, because a non-institution decision carries no merits preclusion and no patentability holding. Any demand letter or ITC complaint citing the '932 rests on claims whose validity has never been tested in an AIA trial.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR reached a final written decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached for anyone — New Balance is not estopped as to the '932, and no third party inherits a compressed set of grounds. Practically, the entire universe of prior art remains on the table for a defendant today, including the Becker / Dojan / Wildeman / Farys references New Balance used, plus art they did not raise. The flip side: you cannot free-ride, and because the Board was unpersuaded on the merits, you should assume a § 103 case built on the same or substantially the same combinations will draw a § 325(d) fight — Nike will argue the Office already effectively rejected that theory. A materially different art set (or a § 102 anticipation or § 112 theory) is the cleaner path.

Pattern signals. No serial petitioner: New Balance filed exactly one '932 petition and did not refile. Skechers did not challenge the '932 at all — its November 2024 filings targeted the '484 (IPR2025-00142), '749 (IPR2025-00141), '511 (IPR2025-00144), '562 (IPR2025-00150), '636 (IPR2025-00151) and '781 (IPR2025-00143) patents. adidas did not challenge the '932 in an IPR despite Nike asserting it against adidas in ITC 337-TA-1289; adidas' historic IPRs (IPR2013-00067 on the '011 patent; IPR2016-00922 on the '749 patent) were directed to other family members. On this family, Nike has litigated PTAB appeals aggressively (e.g., Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG), and Skechers has shown it will press Director Review to revive a denied petition (Skechers v. Nike, IPR2025-00141, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2025), Acting Director reversing a § 325(d) denial). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) is in the chain for the '932 — the Google Patents litigation feed's Unified Patents link is the data source, not a petitioner. The pattern across the family suggests IPR attacks on Nike's knit patents are common; the '932's specific survival is due to a weak first petition, not to a demonstrated robust claim set.

What the absence cuts both ways. The ODP reportedly shows zero AIA trials here while a real, denied proceeding exists — so treat "no PTAB activity" claims about this patent with caution and verify in PTAB E2E by searching IPR2025-00020 directly. The substantive point stands: a single denied petition on one dependent-claim cluster, five years after the patent issued and after being asserted in the ITC and three district courts, is thin validation. Well-asserted patents normally attract more, and better-funded, IPRs.

Recommended next steps

• Pull the institution decision in full. The denial is IPR2025-00020, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. June 9, 2025) — quoted disposition: "we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of claims 11-15. Accordingly, we deny the Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314." Retrieve it via PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab/, search proceeding IPR2025-00020) or the mirror at https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00020; a text copy also appears at https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/68478e707e0d61261c857c8e. Read the merits reasoning closely — Nike is likely to quote it at you under § 325(d), and knowing exactly which limitation the Board found unmet is the single highest-value piece of intelligence available.
• Do not build a defense on estoppel or on vacated/invalidated claims. There are none. Any non-infringement or invalidity position on the '932 must be independently developed. Given that claims 11–15 were challenged and the rest were not, check which claims Nike actually asserts against you — if the asserted claims sit outside 11–15, Nike has never had them reviewed, and the Board's June 2025 reasoning may not even map onto them.
• No trial-stage milestones exist to track. No IPR is pending, no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory one-year FWD deadline is running. The only live PTAB-adjacent deadlines are on other patents (Skechers IPR2025-00141 on remand after Director Review; the lululemon IPRs on the '484/'749 patents), which are worth monitoring only as family-level signalling about how the Board reads the shared Nishida/knit-to-shape art.
• Watch the district court. The D. Mass. case (1:23-cv-12666-JCB) was in its earliest stages as of mid-2025 — fact discovery was set to close 2025-12-19, expert discovery 2026-03-19, the Markman hearing was calendared for 2025-06-20, summary-judgment/Daubert briefing not until April 2026, and no trial date was set. New Balance's partial motion to dismiss was denied 2024-08-13. If you are a defendant on the '932, whether that case is stayed (as the C.D. Cal. Skechers case was, ECF No. 97, Feb. 4, 2025) will materially shape your IPR-vs-litigation sequencing strategy. See https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.[263327](/patent/263327)/gov.uscourts.mad.263327.82.0.pdf
• Caveat on completeness. I could not retrieve APJ panel names, the precise termination-date field, or the full text of grounds beyond the reference combinations described above. I found no PGR or CBM on the '932; none should be assumed to exist. If you need tribunal-grade certainty, run the IPR2025-00020 proceeding number and the '932 patent number through PTAB E2E and the Federal Circuit docket before relying on this summary.

I'll start by pulling the authoritative record from Google Patents' legal events and cross-checking assignment and litigation sources.

Now let me try to locate the specific recorded assignment (reel/frame) and confirm the litigation/asserter context.

Let me verify the litigation matters and try once more for the reel/frame numbers.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 8,898,932 B2

Patent: US 8,898,932 B2 ("Article of Footwear Incorporating a Knitted Component")
App. No. 14/273,574 · filed 2014-05-09 · issued 2014-12-02 · continuity: continuation of 13/944,689 (filed 2013-07-17), which claims priority to provisional 61/727,010 (filed 2012-11-15)
Source checked: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8898932/en (legal events), USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/), USITC EDIS, PTAB records.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• All four are Nike personnel; this is a wholly in-house inventive group, not an acquired-in inventor set. There is no sign of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. To the contrary, the commonly-cited inventors in this patent family (e.g., Bhupesh Dua, whose earlier patents are incorporated by reference) are also long-tenured Nike people, and the chain shows no inventor-driven spin-out.
• The patents this one is related to (the "Knitted Textile Upper Family," e.g., 7,347,011; 8,266,749; 9,060,562; 9,918,511) likewise remain with Nike and were never split off. No fire-sale precursor signal.

Original assignee

• Nike, Inc., One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005 (per the Application Data Sheet and Assignment Center record).
• Business: multinational athletic footwear/apparel manufacturer — an operating company, not a holding or licensing vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. This is the Flyknit upper family. Nike asserted the '932 patent against adidas's Primeknit products, and the ITC complaint describes the asserted technology as "Nike's Flyknit knitting technology." Nike commercially ships Flyknit footwear.
• Status: Operating and active; no bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition. Nike remains the current assignee of record on Google Patents' legal events for this patent.
• Licensing posture: Per Nike's ITC complaint (Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1289, ¶ 76): "There are no licensees under the Asserted Patents, except to other Nike affiliates." This is direct record evidence that the portfolio was not being monetized through third-party licensing.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Coverage caveat, stated plainly: The Google Patents legal-events record for US 8,898,932 discloses exactly one recorded post-filing assignment — the inventors' assignment of interest to NIKE, INC., recorded 2016-09-21. However, the reel/frame number and the name of the recording correspondent were not surfaced by the sources I was able to retrieve (the Assignment Center is a JavaScript search interface that was not directly crawlable in this session, and the ITC complaint's "certified copies of the recorded assignments" are filed as Exhibit 12, which is not a text-searchable public file). I am not going to invent a reel/frame. The single entry below is stated as the record shows it; verify reel/frame by patent-number lookup at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

• Recorded 2016-09-21 — Reel/Frame: not confirmed in retrieved sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (recorded at issuance-stage; the instrument itself is an inventor→company assignment, not a post-issuance transfer of ownership between companies)
  • Assignor: Phil Woodman; Doug D. Wilken; Tetsuya T. Minami; James Molyneux (jointly)
  • Assignee: NIKE, INC., Beaverton, Oregon
  • Correspondent: not confirmed from the Assignment Center record. (Context only: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. — customer no. 22909, Portland OR / Chicago IL — is the firm of record across this Nike knit family's prosecution, and Nike's Knitted Textile Upper Family IPRs were litigated by Banner & Witcoff attorneys Christopher J. Renk and Michael J. Harris, who later moved to Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. I flag this as firm-level context, not as a verified assignment correspondent.)
  • Context: routine in-house inventor-to-employer assignment — the standard perfection step for a corporate-filed application; no change of beneficial owner.

No other recorded assignments exist for this patent. Specifically, there is:

• no assignment to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity,
• no security agreement, merger, change of name, release, or correction filing,
• no transfer to a defensive aggregator.

Because there is only the original inventor assignment, the chain effectively terminates at Nike, Inc. and has been stable for the patent's life.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8898932
    2012 : Provisional filed by Nike inventors
    2013 : Parent application filed
    2014 : Application 14273574 filed
         : Patent issued to Nike Inc
    2016 : Inventor assignment recorded to Nike Inc
    2021 : Nike sues adidas at ITC and in Oregon
    2022 : ITC case settled and terminated
    2024 : New Balance files IPR against Nike
    2025 : IPR institution denied

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment to any holding, licensing, or ventures entity appears anywhere in the record. The only recorded assignee is Nike, Inc. (Beaverton, OR) on the 2016-09-21 recorded assignment. There is no LLC assignee and therefore no registered-agent address or single-purpose-entity tell to evaluate.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original nor the current assignee matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, etc.). Nike, Inc. is a Fortune-500 operating company. Note one nuance: Google Patents labels the PTAB and litigation data on this page as sourced from "Unified Patents PTAB Data" and "Unified Patents Litigation Data" — that identifies the data provider, not a party. Unified Patents is not an assignee here.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / unclear. There is only one assignment link, so the "recurrence" test cannot be satisfied on this patent. Contextually, the recurring counsel across this patent family (Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., then Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer) is operating-company prosecution and defense counsel, not an NPE recording agent — no NPE-asserter list appearance for Renk, Harris, or Bowling in this record.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive assignments; not a single post-issuance transfer between entities, let alone LLC chains within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only recorded assignment (2016-09-21) predates the first assertion (ITC complaint filed 2021-12-08) by more than five years. Nothing was structured to enable assertion or set venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Nike has not filed Chapter 7/11, and no bankruptcy-sale conveyance is recorded.

7. Privateering — not present. Nike kept the patent and asserted it itself, in its own name, as complainant (ITC 337-TA-1289, filed 2021-12-08, instituted 2022-01-07/10, asserting claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the '932 patent) and as plaintiff in the parallel D. Or. action (Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, No. 3:21-cv-01780). The ITC investigation was terminated based on settlement (ALJ ID; Commission determined not to review, Sept. 2022). Assertion was against an actual commercial competitor (adidas Primeknit), not via a proxy NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent remains with Nike. (Separately, third parties have attacked it rather than bought it: New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2025-00020, filed 2024-11-05, institution denied 2025-06-09 — a competitor's invalidity challenge, not an acquisition.)

Unverified item, flagged for accuracy: Google Patents' litigation block also lists a Massachusetts District Court case, 1:23-cv-12666. I was not able to confirm the parties or the role of the '932 patent in that docket from the sources retrieved, so I am not characterizing it. It does not change the ownership analysis, since no assignment is associated with it.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The recorded assignment history contains exactly one conveyance — the inventors' assignment of interest to NIKE, INC., recorded 2016-09-21 — and Nike remains the assignee of record (Google Patents legal events lists Nike Inc. as both original and current assignee). Nike ships Flyknit footwear embodying the '932 claims and litigated the patent in its own name against a direct competitor, adidas, at the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1289, complaint filed 2021-12-08; claims 11, 12, 14, 15 asserted) and in D. Or. No. 3:21-cv-01780, and Nike's own complaint states there are no third-party licensees. There are zero NPE signals — no shell-entity transfer, no cascading LLC chain, no asserter in the chain, no pre-suit transfer, and no defensive-aggregator termination.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center, search by patent number 8898932 — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (indexed mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

I'll research US 8898932's prior-art citations. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific citation lists for this patent.

Let me try to retrieve the actual citation tables for US 8,898,932.

Summary of what I could and could not verify

I ran targeted searches for the citation list ("References Cited") on the face of US 8,898,932 B2. Before giving the analysis, one transparency note required by my operating rules:

• I retrieved the authoritative full text of US 8,898,932B2 (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US8898932/en — the version supplied in the record), including the specification, claims summary, and the references the patent itself incorporates by reference.
• I was not able to pull the complete front‑page "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS / References Cited" table (the examiner‑cited 56 list) for this specific patent within my search budget. I therefore distinguish clearly below between (A) references expressly cited/incorporated in the '932 specification itself (fully grounded in the patent text), and (B) the art actually asserted against the '932 claims in post‑grant proceedings (grounded in PTAB/ITC records). I do not fabricate the examiner's list.

Bibliographic anchor for US 8,898,932 B2 (per the authoritative text)

• Title: Article of Footwear Incorporating a Knitted Component
• Patent no.: US 8,898,932 B2; Granted: 2014‑12‑02; Published app.: US 2014/0245635 A1
• Application: US 14/273,574, filed 2014‑05‑09
• Continuation of: US 13/944,689, filed 2013‑07‑17
• Priority: U.S. Provisional 61/727,010, filed 2012‑11‑15 (prior‑art date listed 2012‑11‑15)
• Assignee: Nike, Inc.; Inventors: Phil Woodman, Doug D. Wilken, Tetsuya T. Minami, James Molyneux
• Family note: This is the "knit with skin layer" family (the third Nike knit family), asserted in ITC Inv. 337‑TA‑1289 and challenged in IPR2025‑00020 (New Balance).

Because the effective priority date is 2012‑11‑15, any § 102 reference must predate that date.

A. Prior art expressly cited/incorporated by reference in the '932 specification

These are the references the patent text itself identifies (all are Nike/Dua knit‑upper art), with the claim groups each most plausibly reaches under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Caveat on § 102 mapping (categories 1–7): these references are expressly incorporated by the applicant, so the examiner may or may not have placed them in the "References Cited" box; where used as anticipation art, my claim mapping above is an inference from disclosure‑to‑claim correspondence, not a verbatim reproduction of an Office Action (which I could not retrieve for the '932 itself).

B. Art actually asserted against the '932 claims (post‑grant) — the "most relevant" recent challenges

• IPR2025‑00020, New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. — challenges claims 11–15 of the '932 patent. Grounds are § 103 obviousness combinations of Becker, Dojan, Wildeman, and Farys. Google Patents records this as "Not Instituted – Merits."
  • Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00020 and https://cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/petition-as-filed/ipr2025-00020/
  • These claims are directed to the knitted component with foot and ankle parts plus a thermally bonded skin layer (foot region / ankle region stretch differential and skin layer). Dojan et al. (multiple Nike knit‑upper filings, e.g., US 2010/0043253, 2010/0175276, 2010/0251491, 2011/0041359) is the notable knit‑upper-construction family cited alongside these.
• ITC Inv. 337‑TA‑1289 (Certain Knitted Footwear) — claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the '932 patent asserted. Source: https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1289_notice01102022sgl.pdf

Bottom line

• The intrinsic citations of US 8,898,932 are the Nike/Dua knit‑upper references listed in Part A, with Huffa US 2012/0233882 A1 (two‑layer knit tube with floating yarns) and Dua US 2008/0110048 A1 being the most directly relevant to the tubular‑structure and knit‑region claims, and Dua US 2010/0199406 A1 being most directly relevant to the skin‑layer / thermoplastic‑bonding claims.
• The most relevant art asserted in practice against the '932 claims is the Becker / Dojan / Wildeman / Farys set from IPR2025‑00020 (claims 11–15, § 103).
• Limitation: I could not retrieve the exact examiner‑cited "References Cited" list printed on the front page of US 8,898,932, and I therefore have not labeled any specific reference as an actual § 102 anticipation of specific claims with certainty. Where I say a reference "potentially anticipates," that is an analytical inference, not a verified Office Action outcome. If a verified § 102 rejection record is needed, the '932 file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter, application 14/273,574) should be pulled directly.

Would you like me to (a) attempt a direct fetch of the '932 front‑page citation table, or (b) build the corresponding § 103 combinations for the asserted claims 11–15 from the IPR2025‑00020 grounds?

I'll analyze US 8,898,932 for obviousness under § 103. First, let me ground myself in the actual claim set and the cited prior art references.

Let me get the actual claim set of US 8,898,932 and check its litigation/IPR record.

Let me pull the complete claim set and the examiner-cited references for US 8,898,932.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,898,932 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Analyst note on scope and sources. I built this on the material actually available for US 8,898,932 (Google Patents page as fetched; plus the iPX/RPX claim listing and the PTAB/institution record). ⚠️ I could not retrieve the official full claim set from the fetched page (the claim block did not render). Claim 1 below is taken verbatim from the third‑party iPX/RPX listing (insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US8898932B2) and claims 11–15 are characterized from the IPR2025‑00020 record. Treat claim text here as a working draft requiring verification against USPTO PatentCenter before being relied on. I have not auto‑corrected any identifier.

1. Key dates and governing framework

Because the '932 claims priority to a 2012 provisional, the pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103 regime governs. The critical date for prior art purposes is November 15, 2012; a reference must predate that date to qualify under § 102(a)/(b).

Claim construction of record: In IPR2025‑00020 the Board noted the parties disputed terms and the proceeding was not instituted, so there is no binding PTAB construction of "protruding areas," "tubular structure," or "unitary knit construction." Any obviousness theory must therefore work under a broad reading of those terms (which is the reading the patentee has advanced in the D. Mass. and ITC actions).

2. Prior art of record on the '932 page

The '932 specification expressly identifies and incorporates the references below. All published before 2012‑11‑15, so all qualify as § 102 prior art (and, being Nike‑owned, are presumptively combinable — indeed the patentee's own specification treats them as combinable):

⚠️ The Google Patents page as fetched did not include the examiner's "References Cited" front‑page list, so I cannot confirm which references were/weren't before the examiner. That matters for § 325(d) strategy but not for the technical § 103 analysis.

3. The claim set (working version)

Claim 1 (as listed by iPX/RPX) requires, in substance:

1. upper + sole structure;
2. foot region (foot part of knitted component) having a first degree of stretch;
3. the foot part defines a plurality of protruding areas extending outward/away from the void;
4. the protruding areas include a first tubular structure and a second tubular structure;
5. ankle region (ankle part of the knitted component) having a second degree of stretch;
6. an inlaid strand extending through the first tubular structure;
7. a plurality of yarn sections extending across the second tubular structure;
8. a skin layer covering the first and second tubular structures of the foot part;
9. foot part and ankle part formed of unitary knit construction; and
10. first degree of stretch < second degree of stretch.

Claims 11–15 (challenged in IPR2025‑00020) are characterized as directed to an article having a knitted component with foot and ankle parts and a thermally bonded skin layer.

The disclosure also supports claim groups directed to (a) a press method using two surfaces of different compressibility, and (b) a throat‑area channel of two overlapping unitary‑knit layers with lace‑receiving elements at its ends and a lace through the channel.

4. § 103 analysis

4.1 Claim 1 — Ground A: Huffa '882 in view of Dua '011 (optionally + Dua '048 / Dua '256)

Huffa '882 supplies nearly the entire knit architecture:

• A knitted component forming a majority of an upper, formed of unitary knit construction ([0039]) — element 9.
• Knit element 131/151 + inlaid strand 132/152, with the strand located within the knit structure between opposite surfaces (FIG. 7A–7D; [0051]–[0052]) — element 6.
• Tubular knit zone 160 — two separate, spaced textile layers with surfaces 156/157 substantially parallel (FIG. 12A) — element 4 (first tubular structure).
• Tubular and interlock tuck knit zone 162 — a second, thicker tubular structure of the same general cross‑section — element 4 (second tubular structure). The '932 itself defines protruding areas 133 as "portions of knitted component 130 that have greater thickness," which is exactly Huffa's 162 description.
• Padded zones 169 / padded area (FIG. 7E): two overlapping, at least partially coextensive knitted layers with a plurality of floating yarns 141 located between them and passing through the tube — this is the closest prior‑art teaching of element 7 (yarn sections within/through the second tubular structure).
• Stretch knit zones 161 (stretch yarn that stretches ≥ 100%) alongside non‑stretch tubular zone 160 — the raw material for the differential stretch of elements 2/5/10.
• Lace apertures 123/158 and lace 122; inlaid strand extending from the throat area toward the lower area and around lace apertures — element 6 context.

Dua '011 supplies the "unitary upper with zone‑differentiated properties" framework: a textile element whose edges are joined to define the void, with a first area and a second area of unitary construction with varying stitch configurations, and express teachings that different stitch/yarn types impart different stretch, thickness, and wear‑resistance to different zones. Dua '048 and Dua '256 add the throat/tongue and collar‑zone variants.

Motivation to combine (KSR factors):

• Same field, same problem: both are Nike flat‑knit footwear uppers aimed at reducing the number of cut‑and‑sewn elements, decreasing waste, and localizing properties. Dua '011 expressly frames this problem in its background.
• Predictable result: flat knitting has long been used to place different knit structures (plain, mesh, mock mesh, tubular/interlock tuck) in different zones. Placing stretchier knit in the ankle/collar and denser, inlaid, tubular knit in the foot is the stated point of the '932 (skin layer 140 "may inhibit stretch in knitted component 130"; ankle cuff 160 "may exhibit greater stretch than other portions of upper 120") and is exactly what Huffa's zone map already does.
• Finite number of options / design choice: which zones go in the foot versus the ankle is a selection among a small set of known knit structures with known property trade‑offs.
• The patentee's own specification cites Huffa '882 for "the manner in which knitted component 130 may be formed, including the process of inlaying," which is strong evidence that a POSA would look to Huffa for exactly this modification.

Likely gap / attack surface: Huffa's floating yarns 141 run parallel to the layers rather than strictly "across" the tube, and Huffa does not describe the yarn sections as crossing each other with tuck stitches on opposite tube sides (the '932 ¶ for yarn sections 136). Expect the patentee to argue this. Rebuttal: tuck‑stitching a float/yarn across a tube wall is a routine flat‑knitting technique, and the '932 itself states yarn sections 136 "may lay in a plane and not cross each other" — i.e., the patentee has disclaimed any requirement of crossing.

4.2 Skin‑layer limitations (element 8; claims 11–15) — Ground B: Huffa '882 + Dua '406 (optionally + Dua '973)

• Dua '406 discloses a non‑woven textile with thermoplastic polymer filaments bondable to a knitted component — the '932 expressly cites it for skin layer 140.
• Dua '973 supplies "additional considerations relating to skin layer 140."

Motivation: protecting an all‑knit upper from abrasion and limiting stretch in high‑wear zones while leaving the ankle free to stretch. That is the same motivation the '932 states for skin layer 140 ("may inhibit stretch…," "may enhance the wear‑resistance or abrasion‑resistance," "may also impart water‑resistance"). The combination produces the claimed thermal bond of a skin layer over a knit upper with a reasonable expectation of success, since Dua '406 already teaches bonding thermoplastic‑filament non‑woven to knit.

Attack surface: independent claims 11–15 (thermally bonded skin layer) were the only claims New Balance challenged, using Becker + Dojan, Becker + Wildeman, and Farys + POSA knowledge. The Board denied institution on June 9, 2025 (Paper 7), finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing. That is meaningful practical evidence that at least the specific skin‑layer claim set is harder to invalidate than the high‑level map suggests.

4.3 Press / different‑compressibility method claims — Ground C: Dua '406 (or '973) + conventional press/vacuum‑forming knowledge

The method aspect requires: positioning the skin layer over a knitted component having regions of different thickness; placing them between a first surface of a first material and a second surface of a second material, the first material having greater compressibility; and compressing to join.

• Dua '406 supplies the thermal‑bond‑a‑polymer‑layer‑to‑a‑knit step.
• The differential‑compressibility platen is the classic obvious design choice / result‑effective variable case: the '932 itself says the two materials "may be silicone and steel," "both… may be silicone with [one] having greater thickness," or "lesser density or hardness," and that the compressibilities "may be tailored to specific pressing operations." Choosing a softer platen against the side with 3D protrusions and a harder platen on the opposite side is the natural way to avoid crushing the protruding areas that provide the claimed ball‑control benefit — an articulated reason tied to the very advantage the patent asserts. The patent also concedes a flexible membrane/vacuum bag alternative, i.e., a small, well‑known set of conformable pressing options.
• Counterpoint: the specification's own numbers ("first thickness less than four millimeters"; "second thickness at least two millimeters greater"; 1–10 mm range) are stated as results, not as critical limits, which supports "obvious design choice" treatment rather than non‑obviousness.

4.4 Throat‑channel / lace claims — Ground D: Huffa '882 + Dua '048 (+ Dua '011)

Claim group (b) requires a knitted component extending through the throat area, defining a channel of two overlapping knit layers of unitary knit construction, with two lace‑receiving elements adjacent opposite ends of the channel, and a lace through the channel.

• Huffa '882 discloses knit element 131 formed of two separate and spaced textile layers defining a channel/tubular structure, with inlaid strand located in that channel; a knit element that extends across the throat area (replacing the tongue); inlaid strand exposed as loops that receive lace 122; and padded zones 169 formed of two overlapping coextensive knit layers.
• Dua '048 supplies the integral knit tongue and throat‑area knit structures.
• Motivation: routing the lace through knit channels rather than over an exposed tongue reduces pressure points, protects the lace, and eliminates a separately cut‑and‑sewn tongue — squarely the efficiency motivation Dua '011's background articulates.

5. The common motivation thread

1. Same field of endeavor and same problem. Every reference is a knitted footwear upper addressing the acknowledged drawbacks of multi‑element cut‑and‑sew uppers (waste, cost, recyclability, comfort).
2. Known techniques in a predictable art. Flat‑knitting zonal stitch/yarn variation, inlaying, tubular/float structures, and thermal bonding of polymer layers to knits were all established; the '932's own background describes them as conventional.
3. The patentee's own specification is the best motivation evidence. The '932 cites Huffa '882 for inlaying, Dua '406 for the bondable skin layer, and Dua '973 for skin‑layer considerations — i.e., the patentee treated these references as combinable building blocks.
4. Articulated advantage. Preserving the 3D protruding areas while covering them with a bonded skin gives the claimed ball‑control/friction benefit — a stated, predictable result.

6. Counter‑evidence and defenses to weigh

• PTAB denied institution (IPR2025‑00020, entered June 9, 2025) on claims 11‑15. ⚠️ Important caveat: denial under § 314(a) is not a merits holding of validity, may reflect the Board's discretion, and addressed a different reference set (Becker, Dojan, Wildeman, Farys) than the references cited in the '932 itself. It is evidence of difficulty, not of non‑obviousness.
• Parallel proceedings: the '932 page lists ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1289, D. Or. 3:21‑cv‑01780, and D. Mass. 1:23‑cv‑12666 (Nike v. New Balance). The D. Mass. case was stayed pending IPR and the stay expired August 9, 2025, after which the court ordered a joint status report.
• Secondary considerations: a strong patentee case would assert commercial success (the Nike Flyknit line), industry praise, and copying. The key vulnerability is nexus — the claimed combination (foot/ankle stretch differential + two tubular structures + inlaid strand + yarn sections + skin layer) must be tied to the commercial success, not just "a knitted upper."
• Claim‑drafting distinctions the patentee has reliably relied on: the combination of (i) both a first tubular structure with an inlaid strand and a second tubular structure with yarn sections, (ii) a skin layer covering both, and (iii) a quantified stretch differential between foot and ankle parts in a unitary knit. No single cited reference discloses all three, so anticipation is unlikely and the case must be built as a § 103 combination with an explicit reason to add the skin layer and the stretch differential.

7. Bottom line

The strongest single theory is Ground A+B combined: Huffa '882 supplies the inlaid strand, the two spaced‑layer tubular structures, and the zonal stretch architecture of the foot/ankle; Dua '011 supplies the unitary knit upper with stitch‑differentiated zones; and Dua '406 supplies the thermally bondable skin layer that the patentee itself cites. The weakest link in every ground is the leap from "known knit zones with different stretch" to the claimed foot‑vs‑ankle stretch relationship and the skin layer covering both tubular structures — which is where the analysis will actually be won or lost.