Applied Biokinetics v. Walmart: Kinesiology Tape Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Applied Biokinetics LLC asserted three kinesiology tape patents against Walmart’s Equate-brand and KT Tape product lines in the Western District of Texas. The case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 909 days of litigation, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Three-Patent Kinesiology Tape Suit Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Applied Biokinetics LLC (ABK), a holder of therapeutic kinesiology tape patents, filed suit against Walmart Inc. on November 4, 2021 in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division) before Judge Alan D. Albright. ABK alleged infringement of three patents — US8414511B2, US10212987B2, and US11206894B2 — by 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 product lines.
The case concluded on May 1, 2024, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all of ABK’s claims with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is significant: ABK permanently surrenders the right to re-file the same infringement claims against Walmart on these patents. Notably, the parties agreed to bear their own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no explicit monetary settlement was publicly recorded — though a confidential resolution cannot be excluded.
At 909 days, the litigation ran longer than the typical timeline for cases that resolve without trial in W.D. Texas, suggesting meaningful motion practice or parallel proceedings — such as IPR petitions — may have influenced the resolution. The public record does not disclose specific settlement terms or whether any license was granted. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation by either side, but the precise commercial terms remain unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 909 days
909 days — above the median for patent cases in W.D. Texas before Judge Albright
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated termination means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and carries the legal weight chosen by those parties. Here, both sides agreed to dismiss with prejudice, meaning the court’s docket closes permanently on these specific claims. No judicial merits ruling was issued — the parties themselves chose finality. This mechanism is commonly used when litigation has run its course and continued contest is no longer commercially justified.
Voluntary, bilateral, permanentABK’s claims permanently extinguished against Walmart
The with-prejudice dismissal means Applied Biokinetics cannot re-file infringement claims against Walmart based on the same three patents for the same accused products. ABK retains ownership of the patents and may pursue other defendants. Whether ABK received a confidential license fee, royalty stream, or product design change from Walmart as consideration for the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record — but the structured nature of the stipulation is consistent with a negotiated resolution.
Claims barred; patents surviveWalmart secures permanent closure on these patent claims
Walmart obtains certainty: ABK cannot revive these specific infringement claims against its Equate-brand and KT Tape product lines under the asserted patents. With each party bearing its own costs, Walmart avoids a fee-shifting award that would signal a finding of bad-faith litigation. The outcome does not constitute a judicial finding that Walmart’s products are non-infringing — only that ABK has agreed not to pursue the claims further, which may carry nuanced implications for third-party licensing negotiations.
Permanent peace on these claimsKinesiology tape IP landscape: enforcement risk persists for other retailers
This dismissal resolves only the ABK-Walmart dispute. The three asserted patents remain active and enforceable, meaning ABK retains the ability to assert them against other manufacturers, retailers, or distributors of kinesiology tape products. Competitors selling comparable therapeutic tape products should treat this case as a signal that ABK is willing to pursue major retail defendants through extended litigation. FTO analysis against US8414511B2, US10212987B2, and US11206894B2 remains advisable for any market participant in this product category.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Applied Biokinetics, LLC | Company | Kinesiology tape IP licensing entity — holder of US8414511B2, US10212987B2, US11206894B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | Walmart Inc. — global mass-market retailer selling Equate-brand and KT Tape kinesiology 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), which requires consent of all parties and renders the dismissal self-executing upon filing — no court order is needed for it to take effect. The with-prejudice election is the parties’ own choice, not a judicial sanction, and creates claim-preclusion as to ABK’s infringement claims against Walmart on these patents. The equal cost-bearing clause forecloses any subsequent fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Critically, no merits determination was made — the patents’ validity and Walmart’s infringement or non-infringement remain legally unadjudicated.
US8414511B2, US10212987B2 & US11206894B2 — kinesiology tape support technology
The three asserted patents — US8414511B2 (application no. US10/817172), US10212987B2 (application no. US13/783632), and US11206894B2 (application no. US16/387266) — form a multi-generational family covering kinesiology tape constructions and methods of use. The application chain spans from the early 2000s through 2019, indicating a deliberate continuation strategy designed to keep claim coverage current as the commercial kinesiology tape market matured. US11206894B2, the youngest patent, carries a post-2019 application date, suggesting its claims may be calibrated to cover contemporary product architectures.
Kinesiology tape has grown from a niche rehabilitation tool into a mainstream consumer health product distributed through mass-market retail channels — precisely the channel at issue here. ABK’s portfolio, spanning three patent generations, is strategically positioned to cover not just early product forms but evolved constructions found in current retail SKUs. For competitors operating in the therapeutic tape, sports medicine, or physical rehabilitation product space, this family represents a material IP risk. The breadth of accused products — from budget Equate-brand variants to KT Tape Pro Extreme — suggests ABK’s claims are drafted to cover a wide commercial spectrum.
Should you run an FTO against US8414511B2, US10212987B2 & US11206894B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing kinesiology tape or closely related therapeutic elastic tape products in the United States should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against ABK’s three-patent family. This case demonstrates that ABK has both the resources and the litigation appetite to pursue major retail defendants. Product teams developing next-generation kinesiology tape formats — including copper-infused, pro-grade, or skin-sensitive variants — face particular exposure given the range of products Walmart was accused of infringing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map their product specifications against the independent claims of US8414511B2, US10212987B2, and US11206894B2 simultaneously, identify prior art that may limit claim scope, and flag any pending continuation applications in the ABK family that could generate future risk. Automated patent family tracking ensures you receive alerts if new continuations publish — giving product teams lead time to design around or seek clearance before a product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8414511B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar kinesiology tape & sports medicine patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving therapeutic tape and sports medicine technology litigated in the Western District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the kinesiology tape and sports medicine IP landscape
A 909-day W.D. Texas patent battle against one of the world’s largest retailers reveals the reach and persistence of ABK’s enforcement strategy.
ABK’s three-patent portfolio remains live enforcement risk after Walmart settlement
The with-prejudice dismissal terminates only Walmart’s exposure. US8414511B2, US10212987B2, and US11206894B2 are fully intact and enforceable. Any company manufacturing, importing, or retailing kinesiology tape products in the US should assess its exposure against these claims, particularly given ABK’s demonstrated willingness to litigate against major defendants for over two years.
Judge Albright’s W.D. Texas remains a favoured venue for patent plaintiffs
ABK’s choice of the Waco Division of W.D. Texas reflects the continued strategic appeal of Judge Albright’s docket for patent assertion entities. Even in cases that settle, defendants face significant discovery and claim construction burdens in this venue. Retailers and distributors facing similar assertions should anticipate an aggressive pre-trial schedule and plan litigation budgets accordingly.
Applied v Walmart — key questions answered
Applied Biokinetics asserted three patents: US8414511B2, US10212987B2, and US11206894B2. These form a multi-generational kinesiology tape patent family with application numbers spanning from the early 2000s through 2019. The accused products included Walmart’s Equate-brand Kinesiology Tape, Equate Copper Kinesiology Tape, and multiple KT Tape product lines.
The with-prejudice dismissal, filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), permanently bars Applied Biokinetics from re-filing the same infringement claims against Walmart based on the three asserted patents. No judicial merits ruling was issued. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties, and ABK retains full enforcement rights against other defendants in the kinesiology tape market.
The public record shows a stipulated dismissal with prejudice with each party bearing its own costs, but no settlement terms are publicly disclosed. The structured nature of the mutual-cost stipulation is consistent with a confidential negotiated resolution — potentially including a licence or royalty — though this cannot be confirmed from public filings alone.
The Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright has been a highly favoured venue for patent plaintiffs due to its historically fast scheduling, plaintiff-friendly Markman hearing practices, and relatively low transfer-grant rate. Patent assertion entities and licensing-focused plaintiffs have consistently preferred this forum, and ABK’s choice is consistent with that strategic pattern.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only ABK’s claims against Walmart. US8414511B2, US10212987B2, and US11206894B2 remain in force and enforceable. ABK retains the right to assert these patents against any other manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of kinesiology tape products in the United States. Companies in this space should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.