Nike has secured a partial win in its ongoing legal battle against Lululemon, with a New York federal jury awarding the sportswear titan $355,450 in damages – a far cry from the 5 percent of Lululemon’s revenues from the infringing shoes that Nike had sought. According to a March 7 jury verdict, fi Lululemon’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel sneakers infringed a Nike-owned utility patent that protects “an upper for an article of footwear, [with] the upper incorporating a textile element formed with a knitting machine.” Not a total win for Nike; the jury rejected its claims that Lululemon’s footwear infringed another one of its utility patents, one for “an article of footwear incorporating a knitted component.” In a statement, a representative for Lululemon said the company intends to appeal the ruling.
The lawsuit got its start back in January 2023 when Nike accused Lululemon of “mak[ing], us[ing], offer[ing] for sale, sell[ing], and/or import[ing] into the United States products that practice the claimed inventions of the [three of its] patents,” including the Chargefeel Mid, Chargefeel Low, Blissfeel, and Strongfeel footwear products. In the complaint, which it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Nike pointed to three utility patents (No. 8,266,749; 9,375,046; and 9,730,484) which collectively cover methods for manufacturing and designing footwear with knitted textile elements that offer enhanced flexibility, support, and breathability. Nike has argued that Lululemon has imported and sold sneakers that directly infringe these patents, causing “irreparable injury.”
The lawsuit at hand joins another ongoing battle between the two companies, in which Nike accuses Lululemon of infringing six patents related to the Mirror Home Gym and its connected fitness-tracking technologies. Lululemon, in turn, has pushed back against these claims, arguing that Nike’s patents are invalid and inapplicable to its products.
A Broader Competitive Battle in Sportswear
The legal tensions between Nike and Lululemon are emblematic of a larger trend: the increasing competition in the sportswear market. Lululemon, initially known for its dominance in the yoga-wear sector, has been aggressively expanding into footwear, training apparel, and performance-driven products – bringing it into direct competition with legacy sportswear brands like Nike. The Vancouver-headquartered company aims to double its revenue to $12.5 billion by 2026, a goal that involves new product categories and global expansion.
Nike, for its part, has a long history of fiercely protecting its rights – from trademarks to patents, frequently leveraging litigation to maintain its market position. Similar dynamics have played out across the industry, from adidas’ failed trademark lawsuit against Thom Browne over its signature stripes branding to New Balance’s since-settled legal battle with Golden Goose over allegedly infringing sneaker designs. As the activewear market continues to evolve and a growing number of brands (including those in the fashion segment) seek to carve out space in performance-wear, disputes are likely to remain a key play for brands looking to maintain their position in the market.
The case is Nike, Inc v. Lululemon USA, Inc., 1:23-cv-00771 (SDNY).
Share
