The patent battle between Nike and Puma
At Dawn Ellmore Employment, the team has a number of years of recruitment experience in helping clients and candidates within the intellectual property (IP) sector. Naturally we keep on top of all intellectual property news, including the big sports brands, as Nike formally accuses Puma of infringing several patents.
FlyKnit technology
The problem concerns Nike’s FlyKnit technology, which is a kind of lightweight material the shoe giant developed for its sports shoe uppers. It’s been a lucrative venture for Nike and has netted more than $1 billion for the sports company since it launched in 2012.
However, despite its success, FlyKnit has also been contentious for Nike. Following past battles with Adidas concerning the use of the fabric, Nike has now filed a suit against Puma North America Inc for infringing their patents.
Puma won’t stop
Nike’s complaint was submitted to the US District Court of Massachusetts, and concerns the fact that Puma has “forgone independent innovation and is instead using Nike’s technologies without permission.”
Nike accuses Puma of using the assembly technologies for its FlyKnit, Air and cleat brands despite the fact that they have repeatedly requested they desist. The complaint says: “Nike has asked Puma to stop. Puma refuses to do so.”
The history of the FlyKnit technology and all the years of research, design and development by Nike is outlined in the claim. The technology for FLyKnit was initially launched six years ago with the FlyKnit Trainer +running shoe, and FlyKnit Racer shoe.
According to Nike, its FlyKnit brand soared in popularity, with top athletes including Abel Kirui wearing them at the London Olympics in 2012. The technology was then incorporated into other ranges of Nike shoes for tennis, football and basketball among other sports.
Nike V Adidas
Since FlyKnit launched, there have been conflicts with other sports firms. Just a few months after Nike’s new technology was released, Adidas released its own upper shoe called the PrimeKnit.
Nike went on to file a temporary injunction to stop the production and sale of Adidas’ technology, which Nike claimed was a direct copy of the FlyKnit technology. A few months later, a German court set the injunction aside, prompting Nike to pursue a permanent injunction to protect its IP.
Later, Adidas filed to cancel the Nike patent on the basis that the technology cannot be patented. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld Nike’s patent and disagreed with Adidas, forcing the latter to file an appeal with the US Federal Court of Appeals.
IP strategy
Nike claims in the complaint against Puma that it has suffered “irreparable harm and damages”. They are seeking a trial by jury to put in place a permanent injunction stopping Puma from infringing Nike patents. Nike is also seeking damages that are “adequate to compensate Nike for Puma’s infringements.”
This is an interesting example of a major company’s aggressive IP protection strategy and is typical of the battles going on all the time between sports companies behind the headlines.
If you are already working in intellectual property or interested in starting out in this specialist sector, contact Dawn Ellmore Employment for more information.
