Nike v. Lululemon: a landmark patent battle in the footwear industry

The ongoing legal battle between Nike and Lululemon has become a focal point in the sportswear industry, highlighting the increasing importance of intellectual property (IP) protection in a highly competitive market. The case, which began in January 2023, centers around Nike’s allegations that Lululemon’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel shoes infringed upon its patented sneaker technology. A New York federal jury recently ruled in favor of Nike, awarding the company $355,450 in damages. However, Lululemon has announced its intention to appeal the verdict, signaling that this legal skirmish is far from over.

The legal battle: a timeline

Nike filed the lawsuit in January 2023, accusing Lululemon of infringing three of its utility patents (US Patent No. 8,266,749; 9,375,046; and 9,730,484). These patents cover methods for manufacturing and designing footwear with knitted textile elements that offer enhanced flexibility, support, and breathability. Nike argued that Lululemon’s shoes, which incorporate similar knitted upper technology, directly infringed these patents, causing “irreparable injury.”

In response, Lululemon filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of Nike’s patents. The PTAB granted review for all three patents, but Lululemon’s motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the IPR was denied. The court ruled that while the IPR could simplify the case, the advanced stage of the litigation—with fact and expert discovery completed and summary judgment motions fully briefed—weighed against a stay.

The broader implications

This case is emblematic of the growing competition in the sportswear market, where companies are increasingly leveraging IP litigation to protect their market share. Nike, a long-standing leader in the industry, has a history of aggressively defending its patents and trademarks. Lululemon, traditionally known for its yoga apparel, has been expanding into footwear and other performance-driven products, bringing it into direct competition with Nike.

The legal tensions between these two giants underscore the fine balance between innovation and IP infringement risks. As companies push the boundaries of technology and design, the potential for overlapping patents and IP disputes increases. This case also highlights the strategic use of IPR petitions as a defense mechanism in patent litigation. Lululemon’s decision to challenge the validity of Nike’s patents through the PTAB reflects a common tactic used by defendants to delay or weaken infringement claims.

The jury’s verdict and its aftermath

The jury’s verdict in March 2025 found that Lululemon’s shoes infringed one of Nike’s patents but rejected claims related to a second patent. The awarded damages of $355,450 were significantly lower than the 5% of Lululemon’s revenues from the infringing shoes that Nike had initially sought. Lululemon downplayed the significance of the damages, calling them “nominal,” and expressed satisfaction with the jury’s decision regarding the non-infringement of the second patent.

Despite the partial victory, Nike’s win reinforces its commitment to protecting its IP portfolio. The company has also filed a separate lawsuit against Lululemon, alleging that its Mirror Home Gym infringes Nike’s patents related to interactive exercise technology. This ongoing legal battle suggests that the rivalry between Nike and Lululemon extends beyond footwear, encompassing a broader range of products and technologies.

My thoughts on the case

This case exemplifies the delicate balance between innovation and intellectual property protection in the highly competitive sportswear industry. While patents are crucial for protecting R&D investments and maintaining competitive advantages, overly aggressive enforcement could potentially stifle innovation across the industry.

The partial victory for Nike, coupled with Lululemon’s plans to appeal, suggests that the lines between inspiration and infringement in product design remain blurry. As companies continue to push the boundaries of performance wear technology, we may see more such disputes arise.

Ultimately, this case underscores the need for companies to conduct thorough patent searches and freedom-to-operate analyses before launching new products. It also highlights the importance of building strong, diverse patent portfolios to both protect innovations and provide leverage in competitive markets.

As the industry evolves, finding the right balance between open innovation and IP protection will be crucial for fostering creativity while respecting proprietary technologies. This ongoing legal battle between Nike and Lululemon will likely influence how other companies navigate these challenges in the future.

← Back to News