- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Nike sues Lululemon Over Patent Infringement
The Oregon sports wear company Nike has filed a lawsuit over patent infringement in the southern district of New York alleging that several of Lululemon's lifestyle sneakers infringe on its Flyknit technology.
In the lawsuit, Nike accuses Lululemon's textile knitting processes of infringing on its acclaimed Flyknit tech, including how the knit's webbed and tubular section's function and stretch on the sneakers, and how flat-knitting is used to structure the seams of the uppers.
In the complaint Nike claimed that it had suffered economic harm and irreparable injury as a result of Lululemon's sale of the four different type of shoes. It is seeking unspecified damages.
Previously, Nike had sued Lululemon in January 2022, condemning the Canadian apparel maker of infringing on six patents over its at-home Mirror fitness device and related mobile applications. Nike is demanding triple damages in that case.
According to the claim put forth by Nike, it invented and filed a patent application back in 1983 on a device that influenced a runner's speed, calories exhausted, distance traveled and time taken. Interactive workout platform Mirror guides users through cardio classes and other exercises. The complaint pointed out the similarities between the technology enabling users to compete with other users, record their performance and target specific exertion levels.
The footwear brand Lululemon defended stating, "The patents in question are overly broad and invalid. We are confident in our position and look forward to defending it in court."
Nike highlighted its Flyknit-related patents in the suit, alleging that Lululemon's infringing products include:
1. Chargefeel Mid
2. Chargefeel Low
3. Blissfeel
4. Strongfeel sneakers
Lululemon has indicated it will defend itself against these claims.