Applied Biokinetics v. Walmart: Kinesiology Tape Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Applied Biokinetics LLC sued Walmart Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting two kinesiology tape patents against Equate-brand and KT Tape products. After 909 days of litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
A 909-Day Kinesiology Tape Battle Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Applied Biokinetics LLC (ABK), a patent-holding entity asserting rights in kinesiology tape technology, filed suit against Walmart Inc. on November 4, 2021 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-01132), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint alleged infringement of US8814818B2 and US11096815B2, covering kinesiology tape apparatus and methods, with accused products including Walmart’s Equate-brand Kinesiology Tape, Equate-brand Copper Kinesiology Tape, KT Tape (original), KT Tape Gentle, KT Tape Pro, and KT Tape Pro Extreme.
The case closed on May 1, 2024, when the parties filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The dismissal with prejudice is a permanent adjudication: ABK is barred from re-filing the same claims against Walmart on these patents. Critically, neither party was awarded costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation.
The 909-day duration — nearly two and a half years — suggests the case advanced through meaningful litigation stages before the parties reached their resolution. Whether a confidential settlement underlies the stipulation is unknown from the public record; the fee-neutral structure is consistent with a negotiated exit. The absence of any merits ruling means no claim construction or invalidity findings were published, preserving both patents’ enforceability against third parties.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 909 days
909 days — longer than the W.D. Texas median for stipulated patent dismissals
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties signed a joint stipulation ending the case. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring ABK from bringing identical claims against Walmart on US8814818B2 or US11096815B2. No court order is required — the stipulation itself is self-executing upon filing.
Permanent bar on re-filingABK surrenders claims against Walmart — patents survive elsewhere
ABK’s dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all asserted claims against Walmart specifically. However, neither patent has been invalidated or narrowed by this proceeding — no claim construction order or invalidity ruling was published. ABK retains the right to enforce US8814818B2 and US11096815B2 against other defendants. The fee-neutral structure suggests the exit was negotiated, potentially accompanied by undisclosed terms.
Patents intact for third-party enforcementWalmart exits without an invalidity ruling — exposure remains theoretical
Walmart secured dismissal with prejudice, eliminating ABK’s ability to re-sue on these patents for the accused Equate and KT Tape products. However, Walmart received no declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement. If the patents are later asserted by ABK against Walmart’s suppliers or retail competitors, Walmart may face indirect commercial exposure. Walmart’s legal team assembled a ten-attorney defense across three law firms.
No invalidity shield obtainedKinesiology tape sector: two live patents with no judicial narrowing
US8814818B2 and US11096815B2 emerge from this litigation with their claims unscathed — no court has construed or invalidated them. Retailers, private-label manufacturers, and sports medicine brands selling kinesiology tape products should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. The absence of a merits ruling means the legal landscape for kinesiology tape IP remains unsettled, and ABK’s enforcement posture against other market participants is unchanged.
Active patent risk for kinesiology tape marketFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Applied Biokinetics, LLC | Company | Kinesiology tape patent holder — asserting US8814818B2 and US11096815B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | Walmart Inc. — global retail giant, seller of Equate-brand and KT Tape productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek T. Gilliland | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Biokinetics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karl Anthony Rupp | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Biokinetics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert D. Katz | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Biokinetics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Katz PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Applied Biokinetics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sorey & Gilliland, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Applied Biokinetics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sorey & Hoover LLP | Law Firm | Representing Applied Biokinetics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam B. Beckstrom | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Debra E. Gunter | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric H. Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeanne M. Gills | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jill M. Hale | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin M. Sobaje | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Larry R. Laycock | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Spencer Montei | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tiffany K. Sung | Attorney | Counsel for Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner LLP | Law Firm | Representing Walmart, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring signatures from all parties who have appeared — a procedurally final mechanism that needs no judicial approval. The ‘with prejudice’ designation transforms what could have been a simple exit into a permanent bar against ABK relitigating these specific claims against Walmart. The explicit fee-neutrality clause — ‘each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees’ — is notable after nearly 909 days of multi-firm litigation, and is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a unilateral concession by either party.
US8814818B2 & US11096815B2 — Kinesiology Tape Apparatus and Methods
US8814818B2 (application no. US13/365237) and US11096815B2 (application no. US16/387250) both relate to kinesiology tape technology — elastic adhesive tapes applied to skin to support muscles and joints without restricting movement. The patents cover apparatus and method claims in this space. US11096815B2, with a higher patent number, represents a later prosecution history, suggesting iterative claim development around a core kinesiology tape invention. Both patents are assigned to Applied Biokinetics LLC.
Kinesiology tape has grown from a niche athletic recovery product into a mass-market retail category sold through major retailers including Walmart, Target, and Amazon. The accused products span both private-label (Equate-brand) and branded lines (KT Tape), suggesting ABK targeted a broad retail footprint. For medical device companies, sports medicine brands, and private-label retailers entering this category, these patents represent active enforcement risk — particularly given that no invalidity ruling was published in this proceeding.
Should you run an FTO against US8814818B2 and US11096815B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing kinesiology tape products in the United States should treat these two patents as live risks. The Applied Biokinetics v. Walmart dismissal produced no claim construction order and no invalidity finding — meaning both patents exit this litigation with full presumptive validity. Private-label brands, OEM manufacturers supplying US retailers, and sports medicine companies launching elastic therapeutic tape products are the most directly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8814818B2 and US11096815B2 against your product specifications, flag design-around opportunities, and surface any pending continuation applications that could extend ABK’s patent family. Eureka also tracks PTAB filing activity — critical for assessing whether an IPR petition represents a viable pre-litigation strategy against these patents before ABK initiates further enforcement actions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8814818B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Kinesiology Tape and Sports Medicine Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving kinesiology tape, therapeutic adhesive technology, and sports medicine patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the kinesiology tape IP landscape
A fee-neutral, with-prejudice exit after 909 days carries distinct signals for IP strategy across the sports medicine and retail sectors.
Dismissal with prejudice ≠ patent death: ABK can still enforce elsewhere
The stipulated dismissal only bars ABK from re-suing Walmart on these two patents. US8814818B2 and US11096815B2 remain fully in force against other defendants. Companies selling kinesiology tape — whether as manufacturers, private-label retailers, or distributors — should not interpret this dismissal as a clearance event. A freedom-to-operate analysis against these patents remains prudent.
Judge Albright’s docket: why W.D. Texas venue choice still matters
ABK’s choice of Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas reflects a deliberate plaintiff-friendly venue strategy. Even with post-2022 transfer reforms, Albright’s docket remains active in patent disputes. Defendants facing infringement suits in this court should assess transfer motions early — a lesson Walmart’s large defense team likely applied during the 909-day proceedings.
Applied v Walmart — key questions answered
Applied Biokinetics LLC sued Walmart Inc. in the Western District of Texas on November 4, 2021, asserting two kinesiology tape patents (US8814818B2 and US11096815B2) against Walmart’s Equate-brand and KT Tape products. After 909 days of litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on May 1, 2024. Each party bore its own costs and fees. No merits ruling was issued.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Applied Biokinetics from re-filing the same infringement claims against Walmart on these two patents. However, the patents themselves were not invalidated or claim-construed by any court order. ABK retains full rights to assert both patents against other defendants, including other retailers or kinesiology tape manufacturers. The patents remain presumptively valid.
The accused products included Walmart’s Equate-brand Kinesiology Tape, Equate-brand Copper Kinesiology Tape, KT Tape (original), KT Tape Gentle, KT Tape Pro, and KT Tape Pro Extreme. These span both Walmart’s private-label Equate line and the branded KT Tape range distributed through Walmart’s retail channels.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation — not decided on the merits. Walmart secured a permanent bar against ABK re-suing it on these patents, but received no declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement. The fee-neutral structure, where each party bore its own costs after 909 days of litigation, suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a clear win for either side.
The public record does not confirm ABK’s future enforcement plans, but the dismissal with prejudice only forecloses claims against Walmart specifically. ABK’s two patents — US8814818B2 and US11096815B2 — remain valid and unencumbered by any invalidity ruling. The pattern of asserting patents across multiple retail SKUs suggests ABK may pursue enforcement against other kinesiology tape sellers. Competitors should monitor ABK’s new filings through patent litigation databases.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.