• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Final round in flyknit patent: Adidas challenged NIKE again

5. December 2017

Last round in the longlasting battle over the knit technology in sportshoes: The sporting goods manufacturer Adidas AG challenged Nike Inc. again and applied for the cancellation of Nike’s patent on flyknit. On 30 november 2017 Adidas filed its official appeal with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, in order to overturn the decision of october 2017 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upholding Nike’s Flyknit patent.

In the limelight: Nike’s patent for footwear with structural elements

Adidas cites Title 35, Section 103 of US patent law. This states that a patent for an invention cannot be claimed if the invention “would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person who possesses ordinary skills in the art to which the claimed invention belongs”. The German sports goods manufacturer is therefore concentrating on the argument that Nike’s Flyknit technology is essentially nothing new. Nike is owner of a patent for „Article of footwear having an upper with thread structural elements“ (Patent Nr. 7.347.011). This is at the centre of the dispute.

Dispute started with Olympic Games in 2012

NikeThis longlasting dispute between the world’s two largest sporting goods manufacturers is about a special technology in the production of running shoes. Nike had launched its flyknigt shoe in February 2012 and Adidas introduced the “Adizero Primeknit” model in July 2012. Both manufacturers brought their knitted running shoes to market in the run-up to the Olympic Games in London and achieved very good sales figures.

Adidas initially only offered its primeknit models for sale in Germany. Therefore, Nike sued for patent infringement before the Nuremberg court. In this case, as now, the question was: can anything as general and well-known as Nike’s knitting technology, known since 1940, be patented? The Nuremberg court followed the argumentation of Adidas and denied the patent infringement.

But that was not the end of the rivals’ feud. At the end of 2012, Adidas filed an application in the U. S. to challenge the validity of the Nike patent by means of an inter partes review (“IPR”). The reason: Adidas started also to sell its knitted shoes in the U. S. and tried to hinder Nike from stopping the sale of the shoe, for example by filing a patent infringement suit before an U. S. court.

An inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure for challenging the validity of a United States patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Quote: Wikipedia)
The procedure is conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
(Quote: UPSO)
The IPR process was introduced six years ago to reduce the burden of patent litigation on federal courts, but critics say it has been exploited by so-called patent trolls and hedge funds.

Ping-pong mode between PTAB and Federal Court of Appeals

adidasThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with Adidas. The PTAB decided that Nike had not been able to prove the patentability of the amended claims against the known prior art.

However, Nike appealed against this decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and was successful in 2014. The court stated that Nike had “invented” a “novel” knitting technology, and that the knitted fabric was recognized as a “quantum leap in the field”. The Federal Court of Appeals confirmed Nike’s patent and referred back that case zu PTAB.

In April 2016, adidas therefore filed three further applications in connection with three other Nike utility models. These patents were granted to Nike between 2010 and 2012 and describe aspects of “footwear with textile uppers and the manufacturing process for footwear”.

However, in october 2017 the PTAB upheld Nike’s Flyknit patent. Adidas could not prove that a combination of previously granted patents did not meet the claims of Nike for an ordinary qualified craftsman, according to PTAB.

The appeal to the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, filed last week, means the last chance for adidas to have Nike’s Flyknit patent revoked. The final is actually served.

You want national or international protection for your trademark?

Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your trademark.

CAT-call_en

 

Source:

Text:

  • U.S. Patent 7347011
  • U. S. Patent 8745896 B2
  • U. S. Patent D707032 S1
  • Stocknews

pictures: jeffjuit /pixabay.com / CCO License    ||    Pexels /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconFederal Court of Appeals,  flyknit,  IPR,  Nike,  PTAB,  U.S.,  adidas

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]