Nike v. Lululemon USA: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 88 Days
Nike, Inc. filed an appeal at the Federal Circuit against Lululemon USA Inc. over US9730484B2, a patent covering flat knit upper footwear construction. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed on Nike’s unopposed motion under FRAP 42(b) just 88 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Nike pulls Federal Circuit footwear appeal before merits briefing
Nike, Inc. filed appeal No. 25-1801 at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 22 May 2025, challenging a patentability determination related to US9730484B2. That patent — arising from application US14/087169 — covers an article of footwear having a flat knit upper construction, a technology area of significant commercial importance in the athletic and performance footwear sector. Lululemon USA Inc. was named as the opposing party in the appeal.
The appeal closed on 18 August 2025 when the Federal Circuit granted Nike’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court’s order confirms that the motion was unopposed and that each party shall bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued; the underlying patentability dispute was not adjudicated at the appellate level. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice to any further proceedings.
Resolution in just 88 days suggests the parties may have reached a commercial or procedural agreement outside the appellate record, though the public filing is silent on any settlement terms. The fact that Lululemon did not oppose the motion and costs were split equally is consistent with a negotiated outcome, but this cannot be confirmed from available court documents. The underlying validity question concerning US9730484B2 thus remains unresolved in a published appellate opinion.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 88 days
88 days — resolved before most Federal Circuit appeals reach full briefing
Voluntarily dismissed: what Nike’s FRAP 42(b) motion means for both parties
FRAP 42(b): appellant-initiated dismissal without merits adjudication
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows an appellant to dismiss its own appeal by motion. Because Lululemon did not oppose the motion, the Federal Circuit granted it as a matter of course. Crucially, no panel reviewed the merits of the underlying patentability determination — the appellate record ends at a procedural order, not a substantive ruling on US9730484B2.
No merits rulingThe public record is silent on prejudice terms
A voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b) can be structured with or without prejudice to future proceedings. The court’s order does not specify either condition. This distinction matters: a with-prejudice dismissal bars Nike from re-asserting the same appellate challenge, while a without-prejudice dismissal may preserve certain options. Practitioners reviewing this case should not assume either outcome without additional information.
Prejudice terms undisclosedNike exits appeal — strategic rationale undisclosed
As the appellant, Nike initiated and then withdrew the appeal. The unopposed nature of the motion and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggest the parties may have reached an understanding, but no licensing, settlement, or coexistence terms appear in the public record. Nike retains whatever rights flow from US9730484B2 itself; what changes is the absence of a favourable appellate ruling on validity.
No appellate vindicationFlat knit footwear patent landscape left unresolved
The voluntary dismissal means the Federal Circuit did not publish a precedential or even non-precedential opinion on the validity of flat knit upper footwear patents. Competitors operating in this space — particularly those developing knit-construction athletic footwear — face continued uncertainty around US9730484B2’s enforceability until a future proceeding resolves the underlying patentability question.
Validity unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: NIKE, INC. | Company | Athletic footwear and apparel innovator — holder of US9730484B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LULULEMON USA INC. | Company | Lululemon USA Inc. — athletic apparel and footwear companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Patrick Bowling | Attorney | Counsel for In re: NIKE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher J. Renk | Attorney | Counsel for In re: NIKE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Joseph Harris | Attorney | Counsel for In re: NIKE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing In re: NIKE, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is narrow and procedural: it grants Nike’s unopposed FRAP 42(b) motion and dismisses the appeal, directing each party to bear its own costs. The order makes no finding on the merits of the underlying patentability dispute concerning US9730484B2. The equal cost allocation and absence of opposition from Lululemon suggests an agreed resolution, but the order itself is silent on any such terms. Practitioners should note that this dismissal does not create binding or persuasive precedent on flat knit upper footwear patent validity.
US9730484B2 — flat knit upper footwear construction
US9730484B2 issued from application US14/087169 and protects an article of footwear featuring a flat knit upper construction. Flat knit uppers represent a distinct manufacturing approach — using warp or flat knitting techniques to produce a seamless or reduced-seam shoe upper — that differs from the circular knit and woven methods more commonly encountered in athletic footwear. The patent sits within a technically specialised area of footwear engineering where construction method, knit architecture, and material integration all intersect.
For the athletic and performance footwear sector, flat knit upper patents have become increasingly strategically significant as brands compete on lightweight, breathable, and customisable upper constructions. Nike’s decision to assert this patent against Lululemon — a brand expanding aggressively into footwear — underscores the commercial stakes of controlling flat knit construction IP. The unresolved validity question means this patent continues to present both enforcement potential for Nike and design-around pressure for competitors entering the knit footwear space.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9730484B2?
Any brand or manufacturer developing, sourcing, or launching footwear products that incorporate flat knit upper constructions should treat US9730484B2 as an active risk. Because the Federal Circuit issued no validity ruling in this appeal, the patent retains its full presumption of validity. Companies that entered the flat knit footwear market after the patent’s grant date — or those expanding into performance footwear categories — should assess their product architectures against the patent’s independent claims before commercialisation or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope against product specifications in minutes, identify relevant prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related Nike footwear patents that could create a broader enforcement landscape. Running a targeted FTO on US9730484B2 now — before the next enforcement action — is measurably lower cost than responding to litigation after product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9730484B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar flat knit footwear patent cases at the Federal Circuit
Cases involving knit upper footwear construction patents at the Federal Circuit and before the USPTO, including Nike and rival athletic footwear IP disputes.
What this case signals for the athletic footwear IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit leaves the flat knit footwear patent space without appellate guidance — and competitors exposed.
No appellate precedent: US9730484B2 validity remains an open question
Because Nike dismissed before briefing, the Federal Circuit issued no opinion on flat knit upper construction patent validity. Companies relying on or designing around US9730484B2 cannot point to this appeal as dispositive — the underlying patentability question from the originating proceeding stands unreviewed at the appellate level.
Unopposed dismissal with split costs: a common settlement signal
When an appellant voluntarily dismisses, the opposing party does not oppose, and costs are split equally, the pattern is consistent with a negotiated resolution. While no settlement has been confirmed in the public record, IP counsel monitoring Nike-Lululemon footwear disputes should treat this case as potentially resolved commercially rather than abandoned unilaterally.
In v LULULEMON — key questions answered
Nike filed appeal No. 25-1801 at the Federal Circuit on 22 May 2025 relating to a patentability determination concerning US9730484B2, a flat knit upper footwear construction patent. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed on 18 August 2025 on Nike’s unopposed motion under FRAP 42(b), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
A FRAP 42(b) voluntary dismissal means the Federal Circuit did not review or rule on the merits of the patentability challenge. US9730484B2 retains its presumption of validity. The underlying patentability determination from the originating proceeding is not overturned or affirmed by this appellate dismissal — it simply stands unreviewed at the Federal Circuit level.
US9730484B2, arising from application US14/087169, is a Nike patent covering an article of footwear with a flat knit upper construction. Flat knit uppers are produced using warp or flat knitting techniques to create seamless or reduced-seam shoe uppers. This construction method is commercially significant in the performance and athletic footwear sector.
The public record does not disclose Nike’s reasons. However, the combination of an unopposed motion, a mutual cost-bearing arrangement, and resolution in just 88 days is consistent with a negotiated commercial or licensing resolution between the parties. This cannot be confirmed from available court documents. It is also possible Nike re-evaluated the appellate merits or its litigation strategy.
No. A voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b) produces a procedural order, not a substantive opinion. The Federal Circuit did not analyse the claim scope, validity, or enforceability of US9730484B2. The dismissal creates no binding or persuasive precedent for future cases involving flat knit upper footwear construction patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.