DCT
1:18-cv-10876
Nike Inc v. Puma North America Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NIKE, Inc. (Oregon)
- Defendant: Puma North America, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-10876, D. Mass., 05/03/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant Puma North America Inc maintains its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s athletic footwear featuring knitted uppers, fluid-filled cushioning systems, and specific soccer cleat assemblies infringes seven U.S. patents related to Plaintiff's Flyknit, Air, and cleat assembly technologies.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on proprietary footwear manufacturing and design technologies that are critical in the competitive athletic apparel market for enhancing performance, comfort, and manufacturing efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement on multiple occasions regarding the patents-in-suit, and that Defendant has refused to cease its allegedly infringing activities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-07-25 | ’746 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-12-23 | ’420 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-03-03 | ’749 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-07-29 | ’032 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-12-13 | ’746 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-07-22 | ’420 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-12-29 | ’032 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-01-01 | Nike introduces first Flyknit footwear (approx. "early 2012") |
| 2012-09-18 | ’749 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-07-14 | ’488 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-10-01 | Puma introduces IGNITE Proknit footwear (approx. "October 2015") |
| 2016-04-19 | ’065 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-07-28 | ’046 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-11-01 | Puma introduces Jamming footwear (approx. "November 2017") |
| 2018-01-01 | Puma introduces ONE 18.1 Syn FG footwear (approx. "2018") |
| 2018-01-01 | Puma introduces FUTURE Netfit FG/AG footwear (approx. "2018") |
| 2018-05-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032 - Footwear Structure With Textile Upper Member
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in conventional footwear manufacturing, which required piecing together multiple different materials to create an upper with varied properties like wear-resistance and flexibility (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an article of footwear with an upper formed from a knitted textile material that includes distinct regions created during the knitting process. Specifically, it describes a first region with integrally formed "stability ribs" to provide support, and a continuous second region without such ribs to provide flexibility or breathability, thereby creating a functionally zoned upper from a single material component (’032 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-13).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables the creation of lightweight, form-fitting, and virtually seamless uppers where support and flexibility are precisely engineered, reducing waste and complex assembly steps associated with traditional cut-and-sew methods (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4, 8, 13-19, 23, 30-31, and 33-34 (Compl. ¶91).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’032 Patent requires:
- An article of footwear.
- An upper member substantially constructed from textile material.
- The upper member includes an exterior portion substantially constructed from knitted textile material.
- The exterior portion includes a first region with "stability ribs integrally formed in the knitted textile material."
- The exterior portion includes a second region continuous with the first, where the second region does not include stability ribs.
- Specific locations for these regions: a first portion of the first region along a forefoot portion and a second portion along a lateral midfoot side.
- A portion of the second region extends along a junction between the upper and sole, and between the two portions of the first region.
- A sole member engaged with the upper member.
U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 - Article Of Footwear Having A Textile Upper
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the manufacturing challenge of creating a single textile element for a shoe upper that has varied textures, which traditionally would have required separate materials and assembly steps (’749 Patent, col. 3:4-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for manufacturing footwear by "simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure" using a knitting machine. The textile element is formed with at least one texture that differs from the surrounding structure. This allows a precisely shaped and textured component to be created, which is then removed from the surrounding structure and incorporated into the footwear (’749 Patent, col. 6:45-50; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This method provides an efficient manufacturing process for creating unitary, waste-reducing knitted components with integrated zones of different textures, which can correspond to functional needs like support or flexibility (Compl. ¶97).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11, as well as dependent claims 5-6 and 8 (Compl. ¶98).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’749 Patent requires a method comprising the steps of:
- Simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure, the textile element having at least one knitted texture that differs from a knitted texture in the surrounding structure.
- Removing the knitted textile element from the surrounding textile structure.
- Incorporating the knitted textile element into the article of footwear.
U.S. Patent No. 9,078,488 - Article of Footwear Incorporating a Lenticular Knit Structure
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a knitted footwear upper that incorporates "lenticular knit structures." These structures are formed with different yarns on opposite sides, creating a visual effect where the color of the footwear appears to change depending on the viewing angle (Compl. ¶105).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5, 10, and 16-17 (Compl. ¶106).
- Accused Features: The Puma IGNITE Speed Netfit is alleged to have a knitted component with a lenticular knit structure that produces different visual effects from different viewing angles (Compl. ¶40, ¶106).
U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046 - Article of Footwear Incorporating a Knitted Component with Inlaid Tensile Elements and Method of Assembly
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an article with a knitted component that includes both "webbed areas" and adjacent "tubular structures." The webbed areas are configured to move between a neutral and an extended position, revealing a previously hidden surface area when stretched (Compl. ¶112).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-2, 17-18, and 20 (Compl. ¶113).
- Accused Features: The Puma IGNITE Speed Netfit is alleged to have these webbed and tubular structures, which stretch to reveal a different visual appearance (Compl. ¶41, ¶113).
U.S. Patent No. 7,401,420 - Article of Footwear Having a Fluid-Filled Bladder With a Reinforcing Structure
- Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a sole structure containing a fluid-filled bladder. A reinforcing structure is secured to the bladder, forming a ridge on the upper surface of the sole that defines a "lasting surface" for attaching the shoe's upper (Compl. ¶119).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 14-20 (Compl. ¶120).
- Accused Features: The Puma Jamming footwear is alleged to have a sole with a fluid-filled bladder and a reinforcing structure that forms a ridge defining a lasting surface to which the upper is secured (Compl. ¶63, ¶120).
U.S. Patent No. 6,973,746 - Soccer Shoe Having Independently Supported Lateral And Medial Sides
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a cleat assembly with distinct medial and lateral support bars. A key feature is that the medial side has a "stiffened section" that is stiffer than the corresponding lateral stiffened section, intended to control foot motion and reduce pronation (’746 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-16).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶127).
- Accused Features: The Puma evoSPEED SL and ONE 18.1 Syn FG footwear are alleged to have a cleat assembly with medial and lateral support bars where the medial stiffened section is stiffer than the lateral one (Compl. ¶82, ¶127).
U.S. Patent No. 9,314,065 - Article of Footwear with Base Plate Having Structure and Studs
- Technology Synopsis: This patent details a highly structured cleat assembly base plate. It claims a specific arrangement of pads (medial/lateral forefoot and heel pads), diagonal ribs connecting them, and parallel midfoot bars, which provides a defined support structure for stud placement (Compl. ¶133).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶134).
- Accused Features: The Puma FUTURE Netfit FG/AG footwear is alleged to have a base plate with the claimed arrangement of pads, diagonal ribs, and midfoot bars (Compl. ¶83, ¶134).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses multiple lines of Puma footwear, grouped by the technology they allegedly infringe (Compl. ¶37, ¶63, ¶82-83).
- Flyknit-accused products: IGNITE Proknit, IGNITE Speed Netfit, Mostro Bubble Knit, and Jamming footwear.
- Air-accused products: Jamming footwear.
- Cleat-accused products: evoSPEED SL, ONE 18.1 Syn FG, and FUTURE Netfit FG/AG footwear.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Puma’s knitted footwear, starting with the IGNITE Proknit in October 2015, was a direct response to the "knit sneaker craze" created by Nike's Flyknit technology (Compl. ¶33, ¶35). The complaint includes an image of the Puma IGNITE Proknit, which is described as having a "fully knit upper" (Compl. p. 8). The Puma Jamming footwear is alleged to incorporate a "fluid-filled bladder" containing "free-floating NRGY beads" (Compl. ¶61-62). An image provided in the complaint shows the translucent sole of "The Jamming" footwear containing these beads (Compl. p. 14).
The cleated footwear, such as the FUTURE Netfit FG/AG, is alleged to incorporate a complex sole plate with a specific geometric arrangement of support structures (Compl. ¶83). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of a figure from the ’065 patent and an image of the accused FUTURE Netfit FG/AG sole plate to illustrate the alleged structural correspondence (Compl. p. 21). This visual shows diagonal, X-shaped ribs on both the patent drawing and the accused product.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’032 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an upper member substantially constructed from textile material, wherein the upper member includes an exterior portion substantially constructed from knitted textile material | The accused IGNITE Proknit has an upper that is promoted as being a "fully knit upper." (Compl. ¶34, ¶38) | ¶38 | col. 12:7-10 |
| the exterior portion including a first region having stability ribs integrally formed in the knitted textile material | The IGNITE Proknit includes regions with raised, rib-like textures that are integrally formed as part of the knitted upper material. (Compl. ¶38, p. 8 visual) | ¶38 | col. 12:10-12 |
| and a second region continuous with the first region, the second region not including stability ribs | The IGNITE Proknit also includes regions with a smoother knit texture, continuous with the ribbed regions, that do not include the stability ribs. (Compl. ¶38, p. 8 visual) | ¶38 | col. 12:12-15 |
| wherein a first portion of the first region extends along a forefoot portion...and a second portion of the first region extends along a lateral midfoot side of the upper member | The complaint alleges the ribbed regions on the IGNITE Proknit are located on the forefoot and lateral midfoot areas of the shoe's upper. (Compl. ¶38, p. 9) | ¶38 | col. 12:16-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The analysis may center on whether the term "stability ribs" as defined in the patent encompasses the specific knit textures and patterns used on the Puma IGNITE Proknit. A key question for the court could be: What structural and functional characteristics must a knitted texture possess to qualify as a "stability rib" under the patent's claims?
- Technical Questions: Infringement will depend on a factual comparison of the location of the different knitted regions on the accused shoes with the specific locations required by claim 1 (e.g., "lateral midfoot side," "junction between the upper member and the sole member").
’749 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | On information and belief, Puma manufactures its footwear uppers using a process where the shoe component (the "textile element") is knitted at the same time as a surrounding waste or carrier material, with the component having a different knit texture. | ¶39, ¶98 | col. 8:1-6 |
| removing the knitted textile element from the surrounding knitted textile structure | Puma's alleged process includes cutting or otherwise removing the completed upper component from the surrounding material after knitting is complete. | ¶39, ¶98 | col. 8:7-8 |
| and incorporating the knitted textile element into the article of footwear | The removed knitted upper component is then attached to a sole structure to create the final footwear product. | ¶39, ¶98 | col. 8:9-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: As this is a method claim and the allegations are made "on information and belief," a central issue will be evidentiary. The dispute may turn on what discovery reveals about Puma's actual, proprietary manufacturing processes for its knitted footwear.
- Technical Questions: A question may arise regarding the meaning of "simultaneously." Does this require knitting the element and its surrounding structure in the very same machine cycle, or merely as part of the same overall manufacturing session?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’032 Patent
- The Term: "stability ribs integrally formed"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core inventive concept of the '032 patent. The definition of what constitutes a "stability rib" versus a merely aesthetic texture, and what "integrally formed" requires, will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence suggests the accused product has textured regions, but whether they provide "stability" and are "integrally formed" in the claimed manner will be a key dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that stability-enhancing structures may include "ribs," and describes them as being formed by "different stitching or constructions in certain areas" (’032 Patent, col. 4:47-52), which could be argued to cover a wide range of knit patterns that alter the material properties.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures may show specific knitting techniques or structures for the ribs, such as "enlarged rib elements 120" and "gathered material areas 122" between them (’032 Patent, col. 14:5-11). A defendant could argue these specific disclosed structures define the required "stability ribs."
For the ’749 Patent
- The Term: "simultaneously knitting"
- Context and Importance: The temporal aspect of this method step is central. Infringement of this process patent depends entirely on how Puma's manufacturing timeline and knitting machine operations map onto this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "wide-tube circular knitting machine" that can be programmed to alter designs through needle selection, producing different textures in a "single textile structure" (’749 Patent, col. 12:45-54). This could support a reading where "simultaneously" refers to being created in the same single, continuous piece of fabric off the machine.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract describes a method that includes "simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure." A defendant might argue this requires the element and the surrounding structure to be actively knitted in the very same machine cycle or pass, rather than simply being adjacent zones on a larger knitted textile.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
For every asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Puma's infringement has been "willful, intentional, and deliberate" (Compl. ¶92, ¶100, ¶107, ¶114, ¶121, ¶128, ¶135). The basis for this allegation is Puma's alleged knowledge of the patents, stemming from "multiple occasions" on which Nike allegedly notified Puma of its infringing activities prior to filing the lawsuit (Compl. ¶42, ¶65, ¶84).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This litigation presents a multi-front dispute over foundational technologies in modern athletic footwear. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of several key technical and evidentiary questions:
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms rooted in Nike's patent disclosures, such as "stability ribs," be construed broadly enough to read on the specific knitted textures and patterns implemented by Puma in its own line of footwear?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of process replication: For the asserted method patent (’749 Patent), what evidence can Nike produce to demonstrate that Puma's confidential manufacturing process mirrors the claimed steps of "simultaneously knitting," "removing," and "incorporating" a textile element, particularly when these allegations are made on information and belief?
- A structural question will be one of component correspondence: For the cleat assembly patents (’746 and ’065 patents), the dispute may turn on a direct structural comparison. Does the geometric layout and relative stiffness of the components in Puma’s sole plates match the detailed and specific arrangements required by the patent claims, or are there material differences in structure and function?