Brooks, Inc. v. PUMA SE: Glycerin 21 Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Brooks, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against PUMA SE in the Virginia Eastern District Court, asserting US12096825B2 over its Glycerin 21 running shoe line. The case — including all counterclaims by PUMA SE and PUMA North America Inc. — was dismissed with prejudice after just 154 days, with each party absorbing its own legal costs.
A swift mutual exit: Brooks and PUMA settle their running shoe IP dispute
Brooks, Inc. — through counsel at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — filed this infringement action against PUMA SE on 24 September 2024 in the Virginia Eastern District Court before Judge M. Hannah Lauck. The asserted patent, US12096825B2, covers technology embodied in Brooks’ Glycerin 21 running shoe line, which includes the Glycerin 21, Glycerin GTS 21, Glycerin StealthFit 21, and Glycerin StealthFit GTS 21 models. PUMA SE, represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, responded with counterclaims alongside PUMA North America Inc.
The case closed on 25 February 2025 via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — a procedural mechanism requiring the signatures of all parties, signalling a negotiated resolution. All of Brooks’ infringement claims, all of PUMA SE’s counterclaims, and all of PUMA North America Inc.’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice. Crucially, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, a symmetrical cost arrangement that is consistent with a confidential settlement rather than a concession by either side.
At just 154 days from filing to closure, the case resolved before any substantive claim construction or merits ruling, suggesting the parties reached commercial alignment early in litigation. The mutual with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars re-litigation of these specific claims, providing PUMA with certainty on the Glycerin 21 patent while preserving Brooks’ ongoing rights to the underlying IP. The precise terms of any settlement remain undisclosed from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 154 days
154 days — resolved well under the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a negotiated, permanent exit
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties. It is not a unilateral withdrawal — both sides must agree. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means the dismissed claims cannot be re-filed in any court. This mechanism is the standard procedural vehicle for formalising a settlement in patent litigation, and its use here strongly suggests a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a litigation defeat for either party.
Stipulated dismissalBrooks exits with prejudice — but retains the patent
Brooks, Inc. permanently relinquished its right to re-assert US12096825B2 against PUMA SE and PUMA North America Inc. for the conduct at issue. However, the underlying patent remains valid and enforceable against third parties. The with-prejudice dismissal with symmetric cost allocation is consistent with Brooks having secured satisfactory commercial terms — potentially including licensing revenue, design modifications by PUMA, or other undisclosed consideration — without the cost and risk of a full trial.
Patent survives, claims extinguishedPUMA achieves certainty — but counterclaims also dismissed
PUMA SE and PUMA North America Inc. secured a permanent bar on Brooks re-litigating these specific infringement claims. Notably, PUMA’s own counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or non-infringement arguments — were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning PUMA cannot pursue those specific counterclaim theories again. Each party bearing its own fees suggests neither side was in a clearly dominant litigation position at the time of resolution.
Counterclaims also barredRunning shoe IP: early exits signal high settlement leverage
The 154-day resolution — before any claim construction hearing — suggests that Brooks’ patent filing created immediate commercial pressure sufficient to drive settlement. For footwear competitors, this pattern indicates that newly granted patents covering popular performance running shoe lines carry real enforcement leverage. US12096825B2 remains a live threat to any party outside this settlement, and the speed of resolution may embolden further enforcement activity by Brooks across its broader product IP portfolio.
Swift settlement, patent intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Brooks, Inc. | Company | Athletic footwear brand and patent holder — holder of US12096825B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | PUMA SE | Individual | PUMA SE — global sportswear and footwear manufacturer headquartered in GermanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Lee Parker | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth D. Ferrill | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sonja Wolf Sahlsten | Attorney | Counsel for Brooks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Finnegan Henderson LLP(DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Brooks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Brooks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP | Law Firm | Representing Brooks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Johanna M. Wilbert | Attorney | Counsel for PUMA SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Paul Labukas | Attorney | Counsel for PUMA SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Cecilia Bolcar | Attorney | Counsel for PUMA SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Piery | Attorney | Counsel for PUMA SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quarles & Brady LLP | Law Firm | Representing PUMA SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quarles & Brady LLP (WI-NA) | Law Firm | Representing PUMA SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge M. Hannah Lauck | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring mutual agreement from all parties — Brooks, PUMA SE, and PUMA North America Inc. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes, permanently barring re-litigation of the dismissed claims. The symmetric cost allocation — each party bearing its own fees — is consistent with a negotiated settlement and does not indicate a litigation winner. No court findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope were made.
US12096825B2 — Brooks Glycerin 21 running shoe technology
US12096825B2, filed under application number US18/651163, protects technology embodied in Brooks’ Glycerin 21 running shoe line — one of the brand’s flagship premium neutral-cushioning platforms. The patent’s grant and immediate assertion against a major global competitor suggests the claimed invention covers a sufficiently distinctive structural, material, or design element that Brooks and its counsel at Finnegan Henderson determined was commercially significant and directly implicated by PUMA’s competing product offering.
In the premium performance running shoe segment, midsole cushioning architecture, upper construction techniques, and ride geometry are the primary battlegrounds for IP differentiation. US12096825B2’s relevance to the Glycerin 21 — a shoe positioned at the top of Brooks’ product range — suggests the patent covers technology that meaningfully differentiates the product’s performance profile. Any footwear brand developing cushioned neutral running shoes with comparable structural approaches should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk, particularly given the speed with which Brooks moved from grant to litigation.
Should your team run an FTO against US12096825B2?
If your organisation designs or manufactures premium cushioned running shoes — particularly neutral trainers with advanced midsole or upper construction features comparable to the Brooks Glycerin 21 platform — US12096825B2 warrants a dedicated freedom-to-operate review. The fact that Brooks filed suit against a major global competitor within months of the patent’s publication, and secured a with-prejudice settlement, signals active and credible enforcement intent. Product teams finalising materials for upcoming running shoe launches should not assume clearance without explicit claim-mapping.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to rapidly map the claims of US12096825B2 against your specific product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor the full Brooks patent portfolio for continuation filings that may extend coverage. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, related family members, and forward citations — giving your team the intelligence needed to make a go/no-go decision before tooling is locked. Start your FTO analysis directly from this page.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12096825B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar athletic footwear patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving athletic footwear technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including cases with early stipulated dismissals and symmetric cost orders.
What this case signals for the athletic footwear IP landscape
A 154-day dismissal with prejudice — before any merits ruling — reveals key dynamics in performance footwear patent enforcement.
Early dismissals don’t mean weak patents — often the opposite
When a patent case closes this quickly via mutual stipulation, it typically signals that the asserted patent created enough commercial pressure to drive settlement before expensive discovery. US12096825B2 remains valid and enforceable, and other footwear brands competing in the premium running shoe category should treat it as an active risk asset in Brooks’ portfolio.
PUMA’s counterclaims being dismissed with prejudice matters
PUMA filed counterclaims — likely including invalidity challenges — that were also permanently dismissed. This forecloses PUMA’s ability to re-litigate those specific theories. For the patent’s durability, the absence of a successful invalidity challenge, even at this early stage, is a meaningful data point for future licensees and litigants evaluating US12096825B2.
Brooks v PUMA — key questions answered
In Case No. 3:24-cv-00668, all claims by Brooks, Inc. and all counterclaims by PUMA SE and PUMA North America Inc. were dismissed with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This means no party can re-file those specific claims in any court. The dismissal is legally equivalent to a final adjudication for preclusion purposes, though no court made findings on infringement or validity.
Brooks, Inc. asserted US12096825B2 (application number US18/651163) against PUMA SE. The patent covers technology embodied in the Glycerin 21 running shoe line, including the Glycerin 21, Glycerin GTS 21, Glycerin StealthFit 21, and Glycerin StealthFit GTS 21 models. The case was filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court on 24 September 2024.
The 154-day resolution occurred before any reported claim construction proceedings or substantive merits rulings, which is consistent with early commercial settlement negotiations. The stipulated nature of the dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the symmetric cost allocation suggest both parties reached a mutually acceptable business arrangement. The precise settlement terms are not disclosed in the public court record.
No validity determination was made by the court. PUMA’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity assertions — were dismissed with prejudice by mutual agreement, not as a result of any court ruling on their merits. US12096825B2 remains a valid, granted patent enforceable against third parties. The absence of a successful invalidity challenge, however, does not constitute judicial affirmation of validity.
Brooks, Inc. was represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, with attorneys Aaron Lee Parker, Elizabeth D. Ferrill, and Sonja Wolf Sahlsten appearing on the record. PUMA SE was represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, with Johanna M. Wilbert, Jonathan Paul Labukas, Lauren Cecilia Bolcar, and Michael Piery appearing as counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.