DCT

3:25-cv-00876

Russ v. Nike Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
amended complaint

To: Recipient
From: U.S. Patent Litigation Analyst
Subject: Inability to Proceed with Standard Complaint Analysis for Case 3:25-cv-00876-IM

I. Executive Summary

A preliminary review of the supplied documents—a legal filing from Jamaal Russ v. Nike, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00876-IM, and U.S. Patent No. 6,639,128 B1—reveals a fundamental mismatch that prevents the generation of the requested patent infringement analysis. The provided legal filing is not a patent infringement complaint, and the provided patent is unrelated to the legal dispute.

II. Analysis of Provided Documents

A. The Legal Filing: Trademark Dispute (Doc. 13)

The document filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon is an "Amended Petition for Cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6,639,128."

  • Nature of Action: This is a trademark dispute, not a patent case. The petitioner seeks to invalidate a trademark registration held by Nike, Inc., under the provisions of the Lanham Act (U.S. trademark law).

  • Grounds for Action: The petition alleges that the trademark lacks distinctiveness, encompasses functional design elements, and is ambiguous, all of which are concepts central to trademark law, not patent law.

  • Subject Matter: The dispute concerns the trade dress and branding of footwear, specifically Nike's "Pure Money" line of Air Jordan sneakers.

B. The Patent Document: Unrelated Technology (U.S. 6,639,128 B1)

The provided patent document is U.S. Patent No. 6,639,128 B1 ("the ’128 Patent").

  • Title: "Methods for Altering Organ Mass, Controlling Fertility and Enhancing Asexual Reproduction in Plants."

  • Technology Area: The patent pertains to plant genetic engineering. The invention provides methods for modulating plant growth, fertility, and organ size by manipulating the expression of a specific gene (the ANT gene).

  • Relevance to Legal Filing: The subject matter of the ’128 Patent is entirely unrelated to footwear, apparel, branding, or any of the commercial activities or products mentioned in the trademark cancellation petition.

III. Conclusion on Document Mismatch

The number "6,639,128" appears in both documents, but it refers to two different types of intellectual property issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):

  • In the legal filing, it refers to Trademark Registration No. 6,639,128.
  • In the patent document, it refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,639,128.

The USPTO maintains separate numbering systems for patents and trademark registrations, and it is a coincidence that these two unrelated IP rights share the same number.

Because the provided legal action is not a patent infringement complaint and does not assert the provided patent (or any patent), the core requirements for the requested "Complaint Analyzer Prompt" are not met. A substantive analysis of patent infringement claims, claim construction issues, and accused instrumentalities is impossible.

A new analysis can be performed upon receipt of a valid patent infringement complaint and the patent(s) it asserts.