Short Summary
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge SherryWear's bra design patent (9808036) on grounds of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision found that Nike had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted claims, leading to trial.
Detailed Summary
Nike, Inc., challenged Patent No. 9808036 owned by SherryWear, LLC, in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argued that the patented bra design was anticipated or rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references including Barg, Pintor, York, and Handras. Despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prosecution history estoppel, the Board found material error because the examiner failed to fully consider relevant prior art teaching. Consequently, the PTAB exercised its discretion to institute the IPR on all 12 challenged claims, allowing Nike to proceed with challenging the patent's validity.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nike, Inc. vs SherryWear, LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amgen Inc. et al.vsBristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Datavant, Inc. et al.vsVigilytics LLC
Datavant, Inc. challenges Vigilytics LLC's patent (9665685) in an IPR proceeding over de-identification and tokenization methods for healthcare data. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Evenhaim, Settimi, Dick, Landi, and Murphy.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,912,081 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm challenges the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of five IPR petitions on the ground that a newly issued ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively. The company argues the rule conflicts with precedent and statutory limits, and would burden the PTAB and stifle innovation.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.