Post-pandemic, the fitness bug took off. After almost two years of feeling trapped indoors, people began flocking to the gym for strength training, to the studios for Pilates, to the trails for running, and to the courts for pickleball. With the surge in physical activity, sportswear companies are competing to produce cutting-edge designs that are functional, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing. In previous decades, house names, such as Nike, Adidas, and Puma, dominated the market. However, in recent years, the evolution of social media has allowed smaller brands to gain significant traction in the industry.
Lululemon, a Canadian athletic apparel retailer, and fan favorite of the younger generation, initially focused on selling women's yoga wear and has since successfully expanded into a wider range of athletic apparel, accessories, and shoes. Lululemon's release of four shoe designs - Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, Blissfeel, and Strongfeel – caught the attention of powerhouse Nike, who believes Lululemon's designs stepped too close to its patented rights for comfort.
On January 30, 2023 Nike sued Lululemon in the Southern District of New York for infringement of three of its utility patents - U.S. Patent Nos. 8,266,749 (the "'749 patent"), 9,375,046 (the "'046 patent"), and 9,730,484 (the "'484 patent").1 Nike alleged that Lululemon's four shoe designs infringed the claims of its asserted patents, which are generally directed to methods of manufacturing knitted footwear with elements that aim to enhanced flexibility, breathability, and weight.
Nike further alleged that Lululemon's products and activity caused economic harm as well as irreparable injury, and requested a permanent injunction and at least 5% of Lululemon's revenues from the shoes in compensatory damages.
On March 10, 2024, the jury found that Lululemon's designs infringed Nike's '749 patent, Claim 1 of which is recited below:
A method of manufacturing an article of footwear, the method comprising:
simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure, the knitted textile element having at least one knitted texture that differs from a knitted texture in the surrounding knitted textile structure;
removing the knitted textile element from the surrounding knitted textile structure;
incorporating the knitted textile element into the article of footwear.
The jury awarded Nike a reasonable royalty rate of $1.20 per unit, totaling to $355,450, calculated from the date the complaint was filed. The jury did not find that Lululemon infringed the '046 patent.2
While Nike secured a partial win over Lululemon, a rising star in the sportswear market, in civil court its fight to maintain superiority is not over. A Lululemon spokesperson stated that the company was "very pleased" with the partial noninfringement verdict, called the damages awarded "nominal," and stated its intent to appeal the infringement ruling on the one patent.3
Nike's battle with Lululemon also wages on in another arena, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). In 2024 Lululemon filed petitions requesting inter partes review of all three of Nike's asserted patents. On March 21, 2025 the panel of administrative judges issued its first decision for the Nike patents, a unanimous ruling that all 19 claims of the '484 patent were invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of three prior-art references. The PTAB is still reviewing the validity of the remaining two patents.
TC's IP group regularly advises clients on navigating patent issues as they develop new products and services. If you or a client would like more information on navigating patent issues, is interested in applying for a patent, or needs assistance with a patent infringement case, please reach out to a member of our IP team.
Footnotes
1 Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00771 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 30, 2023).
2 Nike elected not to place the '484 patent before the jury.
3 Blake Brittain, US jury says Lululemon infringed Nike shoe patent, REUTERS (Mar. 10, 2025, 4:39 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-jury-says-lululemon-infringed-nike-shoe-patent-2025-03-10/
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
