Applied Biokinetics v. Walmart: Kinesiology Tape Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Applied Biokinetics LLC filed suit against Walmart Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents covering kinesiology tape technology against Walmart’s Equate-brand and KT Tape product lines. After 909 days of litigation before Judge Alan Albright, all claims were dismissed with prejudice — with each party bearing its own costs.
A three-patent kinesiology tape campaign ends at Walmart’s doorstep
Applied Biokinetics LLC (ABK) filed this infringement action on November 4, 2021 in the Western District of Texas, asserting three United States patents — US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2 — against Walmart Inc.’s sale of Equate Cotton and Equate Copper kinesiology tapes, as well as the KT Tape product family including KT Tape Pro and KT Tape Pro Extreme. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a judge known for his patent-friendly docket management and high case volume.
The case closed on May 1, 2024 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), jointly filed by both parties. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: ABK is permanently foreclosed from re-asserting these three patents against Walmart on the same accused products. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, suggesting a resolution arrived at without any publicly disclosed monetary transfer.
The 909-day duration and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigated outcome. The public record is silent on any licensing terms, royalty payments, or product design changes that may have accompanied the dismissal. What drove the resolution — whether claim construction pressure, IPR risk, commercial negotiation, or Walmart’s extensive defense team — remains undisclosed, but the with-prejudice bar removes any future enforcement leverage ABK held against Walmart for these specific patents.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 909 days
909 days — above the median for W.D. Tex. patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal — with prejudice is permanent
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties jointly stipulate to end the action. The with-prejudice designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits. ABK cannot refile these claims against Walmart on the same patents. This is a stronger outcome for Walmart than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would have preserved ABK’s right to re-litigate.
Permanent bar on refilingABK surrenders all enforcement rights against Walmart
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Applied Biokinetics permanently relinquishes its ability to pursue Walmart for infringement of US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2 on the accused products. Whether ABK received any confidential consideration — licensing revenue, a design-around commitment, or royalty stream — is not reflected in the public record. The patents remain enforceable against other defendants.
No public compensation disclosedWalmart exits with full immunity on these patents
Walmart secured a with-prejudice dismissal, eliminating any future litigation risk from ABK on these three kinesiology tape patents for the Equate and KT Tape product lines. Walmart’s large defense team — spanning Foley & Lardner, Findlay Craft, and Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar — suggests Walmart mounted a serious defense. The own-costs arrangement means neither party claimed a fee-shifting victory under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Full immunity on accused productsThree kinesiology tape patents remain live against other retailers
The dismissal resolves only the Walmart dispute. ABK’s patents — covering kinesiology tape compositions and constructions — remain in force and potentially asserted against other sellers of competing tape products. Retailers and private-label brands in the therapeutic tape space should treat this case as a signal that ABK is an active patent enforcer, even if it ultimately settled with the world’s largest retailer.
Ongoing risk for other tape sellersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Applied Biokinetics, LLC | Company | Kinesiology tape patent holding company — holder of US10299953B2, US8968229B2, US8834398B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Walmart, Inc. | Company | Walmart Inc. — global retail giant 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 stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) represents a bilateral, voluntary termination of all claims asserted by ABK. The phrasing ‘all of ABK’s claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice’ is unambiguous: it extinguishes ABK’s right to re-assert US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2 against Walmart for the accused Equate and KT Tape products. The mutual cost-bearing provision — neither party recovering fees — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a clear litigation winner, and forecloses any argument that this was an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US10299953B2, US8968229B2 & US8834398B2 — Kinesiology tape constructions
The three asserted patents — US10299953B2 (application US15/240783), US8968229B2 (application US13/602150), and US8834398B2 (application US13/477025) — form a family covering kinesiology tape technology. Kinesiology tape is an elastic adhesive therapeutic product used in sports medicine and rehabilitation to support muscles and joints without restricting movement. The patent family spans constructions including elastic substrates, adhesive application patterns, and laminate architectures that characterise modern therapeutic tape products.
The commercial stakes are significant: kinesiology tape is a multi-hundred-million dollar global market with major retail distribution through mass-market channels. ABK’s decision to assert all three patents simultaneously against both private-label (Equate) and branded (KT Tape) products sold by Walmart suggests a broad claim scope strategy. For competitors, the breadth of the family — spanning multiple application numbers filed across separate prosecution tracks — raises the risk of design-around complexity, as independently prosecuted claims may cover overlapping but distinct structural and functional features.
Should you run an FTO against US10299953B2, US8968229B2 & US8834398B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling elastic adhesive kinesiology tape products — including sports medicine brands, private-label retailers, physiotherapy supply distributors, and OEM manufacturers — should assess freedom-to-operate against ABK’s patent family. The Walmart litigation confirms these patents are actively enforced at the highest retail volumes. Products using elastic substrate constructions, patterned adhesive layers, or laminate architectures similar to the Equate or KT Tape lines warrant specific claim-by-claim clearance analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map product features against the claims of US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2 simultaneously. The tool identifies prior art that may support invalidity arguments, surfaces related family members in international jurisdictions, and flags prosecution history estoppel that could narrow enforceability — giving product teams the intelligence needed before launch or retail listing decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10299953B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar kinesiology tape and therapeutic device patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving kinesiology tape, elastic therapeutic devices, and sports medicine IP litigated in the Western District of Texas and beyond.
What this case signals for the kinesiology tape IP landscape
ABK’s willingness to take on Walmart and fight for 909 days signals a well-resourced enforcement posture across the therapeutic tape market.
With-prejudice dismissals don’t neutralise a patent portfolio
ABK’s three patents survive and remain enforceable against every defendant except Walmart on these specific products. Competitors, private-label manufacturers, and sports medicine brands still face live exposure. This case should be treated as a litigation template — the same patents, the same claim theories, directed at other market participants.
Judge Albright’s docket creates settlement pressure on both sides
W.D. Tex. under Judge Albright is known for aggressive scheduling and plaintiff-friendly case management. The 909-day duration suggests the case ran through substantive proceedings before resolution. Defendants facing Albright-assigned cases should factor in accelerated discovery timelines and the court’s historically low transfer grant rate when assessing litigation risk.
Applied v Walmart — key questions answered
Applied Biokinetics asserted three patents: US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2. All three cover kinesiology tape technology, including elastic substrate constructions and adhesive architectures. The accused products were Walmart’s Equate Cotton and Equate Copper kinesiology tapes, as well as the KT Tape product family sold at Walmart retail locations.
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Applied Biokinetics from re-asserting US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2 against Walmart for the accused Equate and KT Tape products. The patents remain enforceable against other defendants. No monetary terms are disclosed in the public record.
The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The stipulated dismissal specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Whether any confidential licensing agreement, royalty payment, or commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal is not reflected in publicly available court filings.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the claims against Walmart for the specific accused products. US10299953B2, US8968229B2, and US8834398B2 remain issued and enforceable against other manufacturers, retailers, and importers of kinesiology tape products that fall within the patent claims.
The Western District of Texas under Judge Alan D. Albright became one of the most popular venues for patent infringement cases due to its fast scheduling, high trial rates, and plaintiff-friendly procedural environment. Filing in W.D. Tex. typically creates significant settlement pressure on defendants given the court’s accelerated docket and historically low transfer grant rates.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.