Nike’s patent fight with Lululemon is shaping up to be less of a clear-cut win and more of a case study in the limits of fashion-tech IP. In a March 7 verdict, a New York federal jury found that Lululemon infringed claims of one of Nike’s utility patents (U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749), awarding the sportswear giant $355,450 in damages – a far cry from the revenue-based award Nike had pushed for. At the same time, the jury declined to find infringement of another asserted patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046), narrowing the scope of Nike’s claims from the outset.
> The Asserted Patent: At the center of the case, which was filed back in January 2023, is Nike’s U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 (the ’749 patent), which covers methods of manufacturing footwear uppers using knitted textile components. Specifically, the patent claims a process in which a textile element is simultaneously knit with a surrounding textile structure using warp knitting, with differing textures incorporated into the textile, and the resulting components removed and incorporated into a shoe.
Nike has long positioned this type of construction as a performance-driven innovation, pointing to benefits like flexibility, breathability, and reduced material waste.
Nike argued in its January 2023 complaint that Lululemon’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel sneakers unlawfully “practice[d] the claimed inventions” by using similar knitted upper constructions. In its complaint, Nike framed the alleged infringement as part of a broader pattern, claiming that Lululemon was making, marketing, and importing footwear that encroached on its patented technology and caused “irreparable injury.”
> Lululemon’s Defense: Lululemon, for its part, pushed back on multiple fronts, denying infringement and challenging the validity of Nike’s patents altogether. The company argued that the claimed invention was not novel, but rather an obvious combination of pre-existing textile manufacturing techniques – namely, warp knitting, cutting textile elements from larger surrounding structures, and incorporating those components into finished products.
That argument ultimately gained traction. In a post-trial ruling on March 31, Judge Arun Subramanian granted Lululemon’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the asserted claims of the ’749 patent were invalid for obviousness under U.S. patent law – effectively wiping out the jury’s damages award in full.
In siding with Lululemon, the court pointed to evidence that warp knitting, the use of surrounding textile structures, and the cutting and incorporation of textile components were already well-established prior to Nike’s patent, including in apparel and footwear applications. The opinion emphasizes that combining known techniques with predictable results, particularly where there is a clear economic incentive to do so, renders the claims invalid for obviousness.
The result is a notable reversal: despite initially prevailing at trial, Nike ultimately walks away empty-handed.
THE BROADER BATTLE: The case does not exist in a vacuum. It is one of multiple ongoing disputes between the two companies, including a separate lawsuit in which Nike accuses Lululemon of infringing patents tied to its Mirror home fitness technology. At the same time, Lululemon’s aggressive expansion into footwear and performance apparel has positioned it as a direct competitor to Nike in categories long dominated by legacy sportswear players.
The case is Nike, Inc v. Lululemon USA, Inc., 1:23-cv-00771 (SDNY).
Share
