Footwear — US PTAB Patent Cases
41 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 41 total
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.