Source: Reuters

A verdict has recently been handed down in the long-running legal dispute between sportswear giants Lululemon and Nike, with a favourable decision for the latter. According to the public record of the verdict, a federal court in New York has awarded Nike the sum of $355,450 after determining that Lululemon’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel and Blissfeel sports shoe models infringed Nike’s patent rights, specifically patent ‘749, which relates to certain shoe structures and involved the clear use of Flyknit technology.

The jury ruled that Nike was entitled to receive $1.20 for each pair of infringing shoes sold. However, this compensation is significantly less than the $2,800,000 that Nike had initially requested, representing five per cent of total sales of the models in question. This suggests that, although the jury found Lululemon liable for infringement, the financial assessment was considered moderate in comparison with Nike’s initial expectations.

In addition, the jury rejected three claims related to the alleged infringement of Nike’s ‘046 patent, which relates to a woven component in its footwear. For his part, a Lululemon spokesperson expressed satisfaction with this aspect of the verdict, stating that the decision confirmed that Lululemon had not infringed the patent. This ruling allows Lululemon to continue with its product line without modifications forced by the court decision.

In this context, the Canadian company has stated its intention to appeal the ruling on the ‘749 patent, arguing that the damages imposed are “nominal”. The company has emphasised its commitment to innovation in its footwear offering, indicating that the jury’s decision will not affect its ability to continue developing products, and therefore the company is seeking to invalidate the patent through the review currently being conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

It is worth mentioning that this is not the only legal dispute between the two companies. Nike had previously sued Lululemon in 2022, alleging that the latter had infringed certain patents related to its Mirror Home Gym product, a case that is still ongoing.