IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Decision invalidating Nike’s adaptive watch patent claims affirmed, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err in invalidating the challenged claims of the adaptive watch patent because the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision invalidating the adaptive watch patent claims because none of Nike Inc.’s arguments warranted reversal. The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s claim construction, and concluded that its decision regarding anticipation of limitations 1[C] and 1[D] and motivation to combine prior art references was supported by substantial evidence (Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc., No. 24-2134 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2026)).

Nike, Inc. (Nike) owned the U.S. Patent No. 8,620,413 (’413 patent) titled “Adaptive Watch” that describes an athletic watch with sensors to measure heart rate and speed. Lululemon Athletica Canada, Inc. and Lululemon USA, Inc. (Lululemon) petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1–5, 7, 9, 12–14, and 17–19 of the ’413 patent. The PTAB found claims 1, 5, 7, 12 and 17 anticipated by prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 6,241,684 B1 (Amano); claims 2, 3, 4, 13 and 18 rendered obvious by Amano in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,400,794 (Gorman); and claims 9, 14 and 19 rendered obvious by Amano combined with U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0023315 (Flach). Thus, the PTAB determined that the Lululemon had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the challenged claims of the ’413 patent were unpatentable. Nike timely appealed.

Nike argued that the PTAB erroneously construed a limitation requiring the apparatus to prompt the user to exercise at a plurality of successive exertion levels, wherein exertion level is based on a level of physical fitness of a user. Nike contended that the PTAB removed the word “level,” and then erroneously determined that a user’s “‘physical characteristics or attributes’ may be used in ‘assessing or understanding a level of a user’s physical fitness.’” The Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s claim construction and found that Nike’s arguments bear little relation to the PTAB’s actual analyses. The PTAB highlighted that Nike’s proposed construction that exertion level “takes into account an individual user’s particular physical fitness condition” injected more ambiguity than clarity. The Federal Circuit found no fault in the PTAB’s reasoning as it explained how an embodiment in Amano prompted the user to increase exercise intensity, said intensity being “measured and subsequently increased” based on her or his “stride length and weight.” The PTAB highlighted the “broad phrasing” utilized in the patent—“based on a level of physical fitness”—and its failure to offer “meaningful explanation of what it encompassed.” It found, based on a fully developed record, that “level of physical fitness” may be conveyed through physical characteristics, such as stride length and body weight, when such characteristics are viewed in relation to one another.

The Federal Circuit also found that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s finding that Amano anticipated limitations 1[C] and 1[D]. Nike contended that Amano’s prompts to increase “exercise intensity” equated only to increasing “pitch” (speed) -an adjustment unrelated to the user’s level of physical fitness. However, the PTAB demonstrated the “logical and evidentiary shortcomings” of Nike’s interpretation. It weighed the competing experts’ testimony and opinions, found Lululemon’s expert more credible and took the extra step of convincingly harmonizing Nike’s expert testimony. As for Nike’s argument that the PTAB erred in combining distinct embodiments in Amano, the Federal Circuit noted that Lululemon was correct that the embodiments were not, in fact, distinct. The relevant embodiments expressly incorporated methods explained in Amano’s prior-described embodiments, and the PTAB permissibly credited Lululemon’s expert testimony that ordinarily skilled artisans would understand Amano’s “homogenous” disclosure.

Lastly, the Federal Circuit determined that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s findings regarding the motivation to combine Amano with Gorman and Flach. The Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB cited testimony from Lululemon’s expert regarding all of the matters addressed by Nike and provided reasons for rejecting each of Nike’s positions.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB did not err, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The Case is No. 24-2134.

Judge: Bissoon, C.

Attorneys: Michael Joseph Harris (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for Nike, Inc. Brian Robert Matsui (Morrison & Foerster LLP) for Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.

Companies: Nike, Inc.; Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews USPTO