IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D.N.Y.: Nike’s patent for knitting footwear ruled invalid and $355,000 jury verdict tossed, (Apr 3, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known about warp-knitting and known that it could be used to make a shoe.

Concluding that Nike’s patent for warp-knitting footwear is invalid based on obviousness, the federal district court in Manhattan, New York has granted a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of a law in favor of rival shoe manufacturer lululemon after a jury verdict of $355,450 in favor of Nike. In tossing the jury verdict and finding that Nike’s patent for footwear is invalid, the court ruled that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known about warp-knitting at the time Nike applied for the patent and known that warp-knitting could be used to make a shoe. The court found unrebutted evidence from lululemon’s experts, including evidence that knitting a big textile and then cutting out the outlined pieces saves money (Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026)).

Athletic shoe and sportswear manufacturer Nike owns US Patent No. 8,266,749 (“the ’749 Patent”) which relates to an article of footwear having a textile upper, with an application date of 2004. Claims 1 and 14 of the ’749 Patent describe a method of manufacturing an article of footwear by simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure. Nike sued competing shoe manufacturer lululemon usa inc. (“lululemon”) alleging patent infringement. The jury returned a verdict for Nike awarding $355,450 in damages. During the trial, the jury rejected lululemon’s patent-invalidity arguments. Both sides were dissatisfied with the jury verdict and filed post-trial motions. Nike asked the court for more damages moving to amend the judgment to include supplemental damages and interest, or in the alternative, for a new trial on pre-suit damages. Defendant lululemon moved for judgment as matter of law on whether the claims of the ’749 patent are invalid for obviousness.

Obviousness. The court ruled that the evidence at trial requires a finding of obviousness of Nike’s patent. In analyzing obviousness, the court took a four-part factual inquiry considering: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention; and (4) the extent of any objective indicia of non-obviousness.

In this case, lululemon’s experts testified that the general idea of cutting out irregular shapes from a larger woven textile had been known for a long time before 2004. An expert also provided examples of different ways that adidas shoes could be knit; two examples of shoes made by adidas that used the same technique before Nike ever filed its patent, as well as other examples of knitted items using similar techniques. The adidas shoes include the adidas a3 and the adidas Wrestling Shoe. The court also found evidence from Nike that it is not clear that the adidas shoes were warp-knit the same way that the ’749 Patent describes. Furthermore, an expert for lululemon provided examples of warp-knitting being used prior to 2004 to make different clothing, for example lace bras, underwear, and even a shoe. One of lululemon’s experts testified that the process for knitting footwear is not any different from knitting other clothing. Finally, lululemon presented evidence that knitting a big textile and then cutting out the outlined pieces saves money by operating at larger scale and, by using contrasting textures. When the constitutive elements are known and there’s an economic incentive to combine them, that is enough for obviousness. On that view, the court found it difficult to understand how a person of ordinary skill in the art would not think to put these elements together.

Unrebutted evidence. In addition, the court found that Nike did not rebut the evidence of obviousness. Nike did not offer a single argument in its post-trial briefing explaining why a person of ordinary skill familiar with the state of the art would not implement this predictable variation, as lululemon argues. That just leaves Nike’s arguments that lululemon’s witnesses were not credible. The court analyzed each of the witnesses and found that their testimony was credible. While Nike devoted much of its trial time and its post-trial briefing to arguing about the adidas shoes, the court found that Nike overlooked important evidence and prior art. Taken together, the evidence and prior art render Nike’s patent claims obvious even without proof that the adidas shoes were made the exact same way.

Therefore, the court granted lululemon’s motion for judgment as a matter of law invalidating the ’749 Patent based on obviousness which effectively tosses out the jury verdict. Accordingly, the court considered the other post-trial motions moot.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-00771-AS.

Judge: Subramanian, A.

Attorneys: Christopher J. Renk (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for Nike, Inc. Ali S. Razai (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Lululemon USA Inc.

Companies: Nike, Inc.; Lululemon USA Inc.

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews GCNNews