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
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Illumina, Inc.vsMolecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.
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.