Footwear — US PTAB Patent Cases
27 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 27 total
Next Step Group, Inc. v.Deckers Outdoor Corporation
Next Step Group challenges Deckers Outdoor Corporation's '161 patent design in a PTAB petition, asserting invalidity under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The petitioner relies on various prior art references, including competitor products like the Emu Stinger Micro Boot and UGG Classic Mini.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (US 11013291) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The PTAB has instituted the proceeding, finding merit in the challenger's arguments against discretionary denial.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's '786 patent for athletic/golf footwear sole design via an IPR petition. The petitioner argued that all eight claimed features were obvious based on prior art references including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The Board subsequently instituted the proceeding.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenges Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (11064760) in an IPR petition, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over multiple prior art references. The petitioner argues the claimed features were conventional knowledge in the field of athletic positioning footwear.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour filed an IPR challenging the validity of Athalonz's athletic shoe patent (11375768). The petition asserts that various claimed features, including a gradient compression forefoot platform and uniform heel height, are obvious based on combinations of prior art.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon successfully petitioned to challenge Nike's patent (8266749) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding anticipation and obviousness grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art reference Kim. The Board concluded that the synthetic rubber construction of Kim's golf shoe supports the existence of the claimed slopes, thereby establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims of Athalonz unpatentable as obvious over prior art (Kim). The Board adopted a construction that allowed the petitioner (Under Armour) to satisfy claim limitations by measuring heights relative to the sole's bottom surface.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eleven challenged claims unpatentable. The core finding was that the claimed athletic shoe design was obvious over prior art references (Kim and De Obaldia).
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features were obvious in light of prior art references, particularly Won and Norton.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics' IPR challenge against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments of anticipation and obviousness, particularly regarding claim scope limitations like 'article of footwear.'
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Under Armour against Athalonz regarding athletic footwear claims. The Board adopted key claim constructions and found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over the prior art reference 'Won' for several independent claims.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Athalonz, LLC's shoe patent (11,064,760 B2). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's shoe patent (10,674,786), challenging claims 1-8 based on obviousness over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's patent (11,013,291) for athletic footwear. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over prior art reference Kim.
Next Step Group, Inc. v.Deckers Outdoor Corporation
The PTAB denied institution for Next Step Group's IPR against Deckers Outdoor Corporation regarding the Pull Tab Functional '161 patent. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the claimed ornamental design was anticipated or obvious over the asserted prior art.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of Inter Partes Review for Skechers against Nike regarding a footwear patent (9730484). The Board determined that Skechers met the threshold by showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references like Dua and Hong.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB institution of IPR2025-00141, filed by Skechers against Nike, moves forward to challenge the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing after vacating an initial discretionary denial.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Skechers against Nike, finding the claims lacked reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'article of footwear,' which was critical to the denial.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers' IPR challenge against Nike regarding knit textile footwear was denied by the PTAB. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, despite adopting the patent owner's claim construction for 'article of footwear.'
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any unpatentability challenge.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB due to failure to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board rejected key claim constructions and found that prior art references did not adequately disclose the claimed integral knit tongue feature.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.