Brett Trout
Nike’s reputation as an industry leader in athletic footwear is built on a foundation of innovation and aggressive protection of its intellectual property. With the global sneaker market approaching annual sales of $100B, the stakes are high and getting higher. In its latest legal battle, Nike sued Lululemon, alleging that the company’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel shoes infringe on its patented Flyknit technology. Although the case was just settled, this lawsuit was not Nike’s first foray into patent infringement litigation—nor is it likely to be its last.
What is Flyknit Technology?
Nike’s Flyknit technology revolutionized the sneaker industry when it debuted in 2012 with the Flyknit Racer. Unlike traditional sneaker uppers, which were made by stitching together multiple materials, Flyknit uses a seamless, lightweight construction that reduces waste by up to 60%. Flyknit integrates many thin high-strength fibers like Vectran into a single strand that is then strategically woven into a fabric to maximize strength and support where it’s needed while keeping the shoe ultra-light.
Nike’s proprietary Flyknit method allows for precise engineering of textile elements, tailoring support, flexibility, and breathability to each shoe’s specific design. The result? A sneaker that “fits like a sock” while maintaining structure and durability. Since its creation, Nike has obtained hundreds of patents covering its Flyknit technology.
Nike vs. Lululemon: The Lawsuit
Nike filed its lawsuit against Lululemon in January 2023, claiming that Lululemon’s Blissfeel, Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, and Strongfeel shoes incorporate elements of Nike’s Flyknit patents without permission. The three Nike patents in question include:
- U.S. Patent 8,266,749 – Covers a method of manufacturing a textile element with different knitted textures, allowing for structure and support in key areas of the shoe.
- U.S. Patent 9,375,046 – Describes a knitted textile with webbed areas and tubular structures, providing stretch and flexibility.
- U.S. Patent 9,730,484 – Details a flat-knitted upper with a three-dimensional domed structure, designed to conform to the foot for an optimal fit.
In its lawsuit, Nike sought both damages and a permanent injunction to stop Lululemon from producing the allegedly infringing designs.
Lululemon’s Response
Lululemon denied Nike’s allegations, stating that its sneaker designs were independently developed. The company maintained that the lawsuit would not impact its footwear business and signaled its intention to fight the claims from the beginning.
This legal battle is significant because Lululemon only recently entered the sneaker market in 2022. The Blissfeel, Chargefeel, and Strongfeel models were a bold move into the competitive world of athletic footwear, which is dominated by brands like Nike and Adidas. Lululemon’s unexpected success may have played a role in Nike’s decision to take legal action.
Nike’s History of Defending Its Patents
Nike is no stranger to intellectual property lawsuits. The sportswear giant has sued multiple competitors over its Flyknit technology, including:
- Adidas (2021) – Nike accused Adidas’ Primeknit shoes of infringing on Flyknit patents. The case was settled in 2022.
- Skechers (2016) – Nike took Skechers to court for allegedly infringing eight Nike patents, including patents covering the Flyknit technology. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.
- Puma (2018) – Another legal battle over Flyknit-type shoe designs.
Nike’s enforcement of its intellectual property is not limited to Flyknit or even just patents. Nike sued, and successfully settled with, Japanese streetwear brand A Bathing Ape (BAPE) in January 2023 for allegedly copying the Air Force 1, Air Jordan 1, and Dunk silhouettes alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition.
Nike’s aggressive legal strategy has served as both a protective measure and a competitive tactic to maintain its dominance in the athletic footwear market.
The Verdict and Its Impact on the Industry
In this case, a federal jury awarded Nike $1.20 per unit for a total of $355,450 in damages, finding Lululemon had infringed Nike’s 8,266,749 patent. While this amount is likely much smaller than Nike spent to bring this case to trial, the judgment will likely result in an injunction and reinforce Nike’s position as a leader in sneaker innovation. The judgment also signals to competitors that Nike will aggressively defend its intellectual property, regardless of the cost or the lack of patent infringement damages.
What This Means for Lululemon
Lululemon has indicated that it will appeal the decision. The company remains committed to its expansion into footwear, despite this setback. While a financial penalty of $355K is not much more than a rounding error for a company of Lululemon’s size, an accompanying injunction could have long-term implications for its sneaker business. If, as seems likely, Nike succeeds in obtaining its requested injunction, Lululemon may be forced to alter its designs or secure licensing agreements.
What This Means for YouThis lawsuit highlights the growing importance of patent protection in growing markets. As companies compete to develop more innovative products and services, legal battles over intellectual property will continue. And as companies continue to encroach on each other’s market shares, generating a comprehensive intellectual property portfolio will remain instrumental in defining and protecting your respective market share.
Recent Comments