Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Nike Tries to Stomp Out StockX’s Attempt to Sell NFTs of Nike Sneakers
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Nike Tries to Stomp Out StockX’s Attempt to Sell NFTs of Nike Sneakers
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Nike Threatens Fire & Brimstone Over Satanic Custom Shoe Makers
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Nike Threatens Fire & Brimstone Over Satanic Custom Shoe Makers
Supreme Court Upholds Nike’s “Sue and Run” Tactic in Defending Trademarked Shoe Design
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
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
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A.,...more
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
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
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
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
On May 3, 2018, Nike filed a lawsuit against Puma in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts accusing Puma of infringing seven of its utility patents related to footwear. In an earlier post on this blog, we...more
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
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
Nike filed a lawsuit against Puma on May 3, 2018 in the District Court of Massachusetts accusing Puma of infringing over 40 claims of seven utility patents. The complaint asserts that Puma is using Nike’s Flyknit®, Air®, and...more
On May 3, 2018, Nike sued Puma alleging infringement of seven utility patents related to its Flyknit, Air, and cleat assembly technologies1. In its complaint, Nike asserts that it has been “investing heavily in research,...more