Fair or foul: Nike sues New Balance and Skechers for infringing on its "Flyknit' technology patents

LetsRun.com wrote:

Link:www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles...

Any shoe experts know if this is legit? They've already sued adidas, Puma and Lululemon for the same thing. What happened to those lawsuits?

Nike is challenging Boston-based rival New Balance in court "over its use of materials in many of its shoe 'uppers,'" or the top portion of shoes. Nike alleged in a lawsuit filed in Boston federal court that the material New Balance uses for several "Fresh Foam" and "FuelCell" shoes "violates patents that Nike holds for its 'Flyknit' technology." Nike sent letters to New Balance "on at least three occasions" in 2023 "making or reiterating patent infringement claims and demanding that New Balance stop the alleged infringing activity." A spokesperson for New Balance "disputed these claims," providing a company statement that "essentially argues Nike is suing over manufacturing practices that are common in the shoe industry" (BOSTON GLOBE, 11/7).

Nike also filed a complaint against Skechers in California, accusing the company of "infringing on its patented Flyknit technology in several of their shoe models." Nike said that Skechers’ Slip-ins, Go Walk and Ultra Flex shoe lines "infringe on its Flyknit technology." These lawsuits mark Nike's "latest legal action when it comes to Flyknit." Nike in January "sued Lululemon" and has "previously sued Puma and for infringing on Flyknit patents" (FOOTWEAR NEWS, 11/7).

Link:www.adidas.com/

Precious Roy wrote:

Yeah. This one does push the envelope on IP law. On the one hand, this is kind of like claiming that you have invented the cable knit sweater. On the other hand, fabrics like Kevlar have been patented, but those patents include a unique manufacturing process. So, if Nike's patent is just for using a really strong fabric on the upper part of a running shoe, then that is pretty weak. But if the Flyknit fabric is really a unique design and manufacturing process to make this special fabric, then maybe Nike has a good claim if the other shoe companies just ripped it off. I have a feeling it is more the former.

And if you think this is BS, you should check out Dean Baker's writings on patents. He mostly argues about drug patents inflating prices. But he makes interesting challenges to the central arguments for patents and makes a good case that patents are more likely to stifle innovation and effectively result in price fixing and anti-competitive behavior. In the early days of electricity and the light bulb, many Scandinavian countries had no IP laws. The rate of innovation was off the charts in these countries because the lack of patent protection put all the value in the innovators and not the innovation. As soon as someone invents something, everyone wants to hire the inventor and anyone else who is working in the field to try and improve upon the invention. But with IP law, the holder of the patent keeps the technology locked in place until they get a return on their investment.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Link:www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles...

Any shoe experts know if this is legit? They've already sued adidas, Puma and Lululemon for the same thing. What happened to those lawsuits?

Nike is challenging Boston-based rival New Balance in court "over its use of materials in many of its shoe 'uppers,'" or the top portion of shoes. Nike alleged in a lawsuit filed in Boston federal court that the material New Balance uses for several "Fresh Foam" and "FuelCell" shoes "violates patents that Nike holds for its 'Flyknit' technology." Nike sent letters to New Balance "on at least three occasions" in 2023 "making or reiterating patent infringement claims and demanding that New Balance stop the alleged infringing activity." A spokesperson for New Balance "disputed these claims," providing a company statement that "essentially argues Nike is suing over manufacturing practices that are common in the shoe industry" (BOSTON GLOBE, 11/7).

Nike also filed a complaint against Skechers in California, accusing the company of "infringing on its patented Flyknit technology in several of their shoe models." Nike said that Skechers’ Slip-ins, Go Walk and Ultra Flex shoe lines "infringe on its Flyknit technology." These lawsuits mark Nike's "latest legal action when it comes to Flyknit." Nike in January "sued Lululemon" and has "previously sued Puma and for infringing on Flyknit patents" (FOOTWEAR NEWS, 11/7).

Link:www.adidas.com/

Joe Jackson wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Yeah. This one does push the envelope on IP law. On the one hand, this is kind of like claiming that you have invented the cable knit sweater. On the other hand, fabrics like Kevlar have been patented, but those patents include a unique manufacturing process. So, if Nike's patent is just for using a really strong fabric on the upper part of a running shoe, then that is pretty weak. But if the Flyknit fabric is really a unique design and manufacturing process to make this special fabric, then maybe Nike has a good claim if the other shoe companies just ripped it off. I have a feeling it is more the former.

And if you think this is BS, you should check out Dean Baker's writings on patents. He mostly argues about drug patents inflating prices. But he makes interesting challenges to the central arguments for patents and makes a good case that patents are more likely to stifle innovation and effectively result in price fixing and anti-competitive behavior. In the early days of electricity and the light bulb, many Scandinavian countries had no IP laws. The rate of innovation was off the charts in these countries because the lack of patent protection put all the value in the innovators and not the innovation. As soon as someone invents something, everyone wants to hire the inventor and anyone else who is working in the field to try and improve upon the invention. But with IP law, the holder of the patent keeps the technology locked in place until they get a return on their investment.

That’s a horrible argument, at least in modern times. About the only technology worth patenting any more costs loads of money to develop. It doesn’t necessarily costs loads to copy it though. If someone/company can just take your million-plus dollar investment in product development and copy it for 1/10 of the cost (because they already have the answer) there’s zero incentive to develop new tech.

While patent law is far from perfect in how it’s handled and its cost, the patent system is generally effective in promoting innovation as new tech is developed that can coexist alongside other patented inventions. It takes a really special patent to block out any and all alternative solutions and when those discoveries are made I’d argue that person/company deserves 20 years of protection.