News & Analysis as of

Nike Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Infringement

Jones Day

Skechers IPR Still Kicking After Director Review

Jones Day on

In a Director Review, the Acting Director reversed a panel decision to discretionarily deny an IPR under § 325(d). The Acting Director held that the PTAB’s own findings in two previous IPRs sufficiently proved Examiner error...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir....

Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2021 #2

ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2051 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) For the second time in two weeks, our Case of the Week concerns issues relating to Article III justiciability of an appeal from an IPR...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

“Seams” Like Activity Giving Rise to Infringement Risk Supports Appellate Jurisdiction

Adding to its body of jurisprudence on standing to challenge an adverse final written opinion in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a petitioner had constitutional...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more

Knobbe Martens

No Specific Threat of Infringement Litigation Needed to Establish Standing for IPR Appeal

Knobbe Martens on

ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC. Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

No Notice, No Decision

Troutman Pepper Locke on

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Appeal No. 2019-1262 (Fed. Cir., April 9, 2020) - The PTAB has never shown an affinity for permitting amendments in IPRs. This appeal marks the second time that a proposed amendment in an IPR was...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2018

Knobbe Martens on

The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2018

WilmerHale on

Biodelivery Sciences Intl. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (No. 2017-1265, -1266, -1268, 7/31/18) (Newman, Lourie, Reyna) - Newman, J. Remanding IPRs so the Board can consider non-instituted claims and grounds per the...more

Troutman Pepper

Battle Between Sneaker Makers Nike and Adidas Will Go Another Round

Troutman Pepper on

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided an appeal earlier this month in a long-running battle between footwear manufacturers Nike and Adidas that gives Patent Owner Nike a partial (and perhaps fleeting) victory....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Athletic Shoe Lawsuits are Off and Running

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Sneakers have been around for a very long time – at least since the late 1800’s. The first patent for a rubber heel for shoes was granted in 1899, and the first patent for “athletic shoes” issued in 1921, although it related...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide