Executive Summary
New Balance Athletics successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nike's footwear patent, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings. The petition asserts that numerous claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Clark and Mills.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in New Balance Athletics, Inc. vs Nike, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsCollision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsVIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully secured the institution of its IPR against VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., challenging 13 claims related to low latency video conferencing over § 103 obviousness. The Board found compelling evidence that Cisco has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple independent and dependent claims, moving the dispute into active litigation.
Google LLCvs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsWellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
Avanos Medical, Inc.vsStratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle claims at the PTAB, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner argues that combining multiple prior art references—including Racz, Fitz, and Lee—would have motivated a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art to create the claimed device.
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.