Cellspin Soft v. Nike: Wearable Tech Patent Suit Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Cellspin Soft, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Nike in the Northern District of California, asserting three patents covering wireless data capture and transfer technology against the Nike Adapt App and Nike Adapt Wearable. The case ran 586 days before both parties jointly stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Cellspin’s Wearable Patent Trifecta Ends Against Nike Without Trial
Filed on 19 October 2023 in the Northern District of California before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, this action saw Cellspin Soft, Inc. assert three patents — US9749847B2, US8738794B2, and US8892752B2 — against Nike, Inc., targeting the Nike Adapt App and Nike Adapt Wearable product ecosystem. Cellspin’s patents broadly cover wireless data capture, pairing, and transfer functionality between wearable devices and mobile platforms.
After 586 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), which Judge Gonzalez Rogers approved. The court ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice, meaning Cellspin is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Nike on these patents. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting no finding of exceptional case conduct by either side.
The 586-day duration suggests the case progressed well past initial pleadings — likely through claim construction or early dispositive motion practice — before the parties resolved it. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and with-prejudice designation are consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the public record does not disclose any financial settlement terms. What prompted the dismissal, whether a licensing agreement, cross-licensing arrangement, or strategic withdrawal, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 586 days
586 days from filing to close — above the median for N.D. Cal. patent suits
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a) stipulated dismissal — permanent bar on re-filing
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), a stipulated dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this order permanently extinguishes Cellspin’s right to assert the same claims against Nike on these three patents. The court’s approval formalises the parties’ mutual agreement to end the litigation on these terms.
Rule 41(a) — with prejudiceCellspin permanently surrenders its claims against Nike
A with-prejudice dismissal means Cellspin Soft cannot revisit these infringement claims against Nike in any future proceeding. The patents themselves remain in force against third parties, but Nike secures permanent immunity from these specific assertions. The absence of a fee-shifting order suggests Cellspin avoided an ‘exceptional case’ finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would have exposed it to Nike’s legal costs.
Claims extinguished against NikeNike obtains permanent closure — Adapt products cleared of these claims
Nike, represented by DLA Piper and Findlay Craft, secures a permanent bar against Cellspin re-asserting US9749847B2, US8738794B2, or US8892752B2 against the Adapt App and Adapt Wearable line. Each party bearing its own costs is commercially neutral for Nike but signals no litigation misconduct finding. Nike retains the right to pursue invalidity of these patents via IPR should future assertion risk emerge.
Adapt products permanently clearedWearable tech sector: three Cellspin patents remain live threats to others
While Nike exits this dispute with prejudice, US9749847B2, US8738794B2, and US8892752B2 remain enforceable against other wearable tech and connected device manufacturers. Cellspin’s history of serial patent assertion suggests companies operating in wireless data capture and wearable pairing technology should monitor these patents closely. The absence of an invalidity ruling here means these patents carry no additional weakening from this case.
Patents remain live for othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cellspin Soft, Inc. | Company | Wearable tech patent assertion entity — holder of US9749847B2, US8738794B2, and US8892752B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nike | Individual | Nike, Inc. — global sportswear and wearable technology company, maker of Nike Adapt WearableSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Cellspin Soft, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Cellspin Soft, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Cellspin Soft, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea IP Trial Boutique | Law Firm | Representing Cellspin Soft, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Cellspin Soft, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Huang | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward H. Sikorski | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Michael Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter Maggiore | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard T. Mulloy | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Thomas Mulloy | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (San Diego) | Law Firm | Representing NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft LLC | Law Firm | Representing NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing NikeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language — a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) stipulated dismissal with prejudice — reflects a negotiated endpoint rather than a merits adjudication. The with-prejudice designation is the critical operative term: it functions as a final judgment, permanently barring Cellspin from re-asserting these three patents against Nike. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a commercial resolution where neither party conceded liability, and where neither sought to penalise the other for litigation conduct.
US9749847B2, US8738794B2 & US8892752B2 — Wireless Wearable Data Transfer
The three Cellspin patents — US9749847B2 (App. No. 14/576202), US8738794B2 (App. No. 13/922227), and US8892752B2 (App. No. 14/295352) — relate to systems and methods for capturing data on wearable or Bluetooth-enabled peripheral devices and transferring that data to networked platforms via a paired mobile device. The application numbers span filings from approximately 2013–2014, placing them in the early commercial phase of consumer wearable and IoT device development.
These patents occupy a strategically significant position in the wearable tech IP landscape: the claimed functionality — device pairing, data capture, and seamless cloud or app-layer transfer — is now foundational to virtually every fitness wearable, smart shoe, and connected sportswear platform on the market. Cellspin has asserted this portfolio across multiple defendants, suggesting a licensing-oriented enforcement programme. For companies developing or distributing wearable products with Bluetooth or app-connected data features, these patents represent non-trivial freedom-to-operate risk.
Should your wearable product team run an FTO against US9749847B2?
Any R&D or product team building wearable hardware, connected footwear, fitness sensors, or companion mobile applications that capture and transfer user data via Bluetooth or similar short-range protocols should assess exposure to this Cellspin portfolio. The Nike Adapt case confirms these patents are actively asserted against commercial wearable products — and the with-prejudice dismissal here produced no invalidity finding that would weaken them for future defendants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP teams to map claim scope across US9749847B2, US8738794B2, and US8892752B2 against your specific product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and monitor Cellspin’s broader assertion activity in real time. Running a structured FTO before product launch is materially faster and cheaper than defending a district court infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9749847B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wearable Tech Patent Suits in N.D. California
Related patent infringement actions involving wireless wearable data transfer technology and Bluetooth pairing patents litigated in the Northern District of California.
What Cellspin v. Nike signals for wearable tech IP enforcement
This case illustrates the risk calculus around asserting wireless-pairing patents against major consumer tech and sportswear brands.
With-prejudice dismissals protect defendants — but only for named parties
Nike’s with-prejudice protection is company-specific. Cellspin’s three patents on wireless data capture and wearable device pairing remain fully enforceable against competing wearable manufacturers, fitness tech platforms, and connected apparel companies. Any business operating in this space should audit exposure before Cellspin identifies its next target.
No fee-shifting order limits the deterrent signal from this outcome
The court’s order that each party bear its own costs means no ‘exceptional case’ finding under § 285 was made. This outcome does not significantly deter future assertions of these patents. Patent teams tracking Cellspin’s litigation activity should note that its assertion strategy has not yet produced a sanctions-level adverse ruling in the public record.
Cellspin v Nike — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), approved by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 27 May 2025. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The dismissal permanently bars Cellspin from re-asserting the same patent claims against Nike.
Cellspin asserted three US patents: US9749847B2 (App. No. 14/576202), US8738794B2 (App. No. 13/922227), and US8892752B2 (App. No. 14/295352). These patents cover wireless data capture, device pairing, and data transfer technology between wearable devices and mobile or networked platforms.
The accused products were the Nike Adapt App and the Nike Adapt Wearable — Nike’s connected footwear and companion application platform that uses Bluetooth pairing and app-based data synchronisation functionality central to Cellspin’s patent claims.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a) only bars Cellspin from re-asserting these specific claims against Nike. It does not adjudicate the validity or invalidity of the patents. US9749847B2, US8738794B2, and US8892752B2 remain in force and enforceable against other parties in the wearable tech sector.
No. The court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution and suggests no finding of exceptional case conduct under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was made. The absence of fee-shifting means this outcome does not materially deter future Cellspin assertions against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.