Executive Summary
Nike challenges SherryWear’s patent (9,808,036) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claimed pocket bra designs are obvious over existing prior art references. The petition asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations of references like Barg, York, and Pintor. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the two companies.
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
Toyota Motor Corporation et al.vsInfogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. filed an opening petition to challenge Infogation Corp.'s patent (US 10107628) in the PTAB, alleging anticipation and obviousness of navigation system claims. The petitioner asserts that prior art, particularly JP973, discloses methods for using artistic maps with coordinate transformation for destination selection.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al.vsHENGST SE
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against HENGST SE's patent, finding that Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for claim 1 despite parallel district court litigation. The Board determined that Fintiv factors outweighed those favoring discretionary denial.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. successfully challenged Headwater Research LLC's patent (8924543) on grounds of obviousness, leading to the institution of the IPR proceeding. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references Poh and Maes rendered the claimed network service provisioning system obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics challenges Oura Health's wearable computing patents via IPR proceedings, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to gesture recognition and biosensing.
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.