Short 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.
Detailed Summary
Nike, Inc., has filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,036 owned by SherryWear, LLC. The core argument centers on obviousness (103), asserting that the claimed features of the pocket bra—including stitching and patch alignment—are already disclosed or rendered obvious when combining references such as Barg, York, Pintor, and Handras. Nike details three specific grounds for unpatentability, targeting various claims based on these prior art combinations. The petition also addresses priority date limitations but maintains that the challenged claims are merit-based and not subject to discretionary denial.
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
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsB.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured the institution of IPR against Mullen Industries' patent 10967270, challenging five claims based on obviousness over Nakamura and Benini.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,798,006 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper application of the Fintiv factors.
Dead Air Silencers et al.vsJarvis Arms LLC
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
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.