Knitted Footwear Uppers Patents: Who Leads, White Space 2026
- One leader, a long tail. The assignee ranking runs from 20 down to 2 across six ranked companies, with no second filer close to the leader.
- Filing peaked in 2019, then fell sharply. Documented filings dropped from a 2021 count of 4 to 0 by 2024, a -100% swing over that three-year span.
- Knitting and footwear classes dominate; digital and lamination barely feature. D04B and A43B each cover well over half of the 41 records, while G06F, A43D, A43C and B32B sit in single digits.
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (0) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field.
What this landscape covers
This review tracks 41 published records at the intersection of knitted footwear uppers and footwear bonding methods, spanning flat knitting, yarn selection, thermoplastic overlay, adhesive-free assembly, fit consistency and waste reduction. The scope favours records that treat the knit structure itself as the load-bearing or fit-determining element, rather than knit fabric used only as a decorative layer over a conventional upper. Patent families, not raw document counts, are the fairer unit for judging real filing activity here, since a single invention can generate several publications across jurisdictions.
Coverage runs from 2015-01-01 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart understate actual filing activity and should not be read as a decline in inventive interest.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
The trend line and class breakdown below are drawn from the same 41-record scope described above; a record can sit in more than one IPC subclass, so class shares add up to more than the record total.
Filing trend: rise, peak, fall
Filings were absent in 2017, climbed to a peak of 21 in 2019, and by the last complete year of 2021 to 2024 comparison had fallen 100%, from 4 filings in 2021 to 0 in 2024. Treat 2025 and 2026 as still filling in rather than as a continuation of that fall.
Two classes carry the field
D04B (knitting) appears in 68.3% of the 41 records and A43B (footwear) in 61.0%, confirming that most inventions are claimed as knitting-process or footwear-structure improvements. G06F (digital data processing, 14.6%), A43D (shoemaking machinery, 7.3%), A43C (fastenings, 4.9%) and B32B (laminates, 2.4%) each cover a small minority, which is where adjacent claim strategies remain comparatively open.
Shares are the percentage of the 41 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Knitted Footwear Uppers and Bonding with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about knitted footwear uppers and bonding and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records shaping this space
Article of footwear with integrally-knitted upper and sole including grip yarn and method of manufacturing
An article of footwear includes an integrally-knitted footwear upper and sole, the sole including reflowed polymeric material of a grip yarn. The ground contact surface of the sole may include the reflowed polymeric material. The footwear upper and the sole are a one-piece, unitary knit construction. A method of manufacturing an article of footwear includes integrally knitting a footwear upper and a sole of an article of footwear, the sole including a grip yarn. The method further includes thermoforming the grip yarn such that the sole includes reflowed polymeric material of the grip yarn.Filed by NIKE, INC., published 2024-06-06 as US20240180289A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120255201A1 | Seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same | 566 |
| 2 | US20130269212A1 | Seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same | 56 |
| 3 | WO2012166244A1 | Seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same | 36 |
| 4 | US20190343216A1 | System and method for knitting a polymer reinforcing fiber footwear upper | 26 |
| 5 | US20190350303A1 | System and method for knitting shoe uppers | 21 |
| 6 | US20190382931A1 | Tool for design and fabrication of knitted components | 18 |
| 7 | US20190335857A1 | System and method for knitting shoe uppers | 11 |
| 8 | US11186930B2 | System and method for knitting shoe uppers | 9 |
| 9 | US11168416B2 | System and method for knitting shoe uppers | 6 |
| 10 | US11913149B2 | Tool for design and fabrication of knitted components | 5 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older publications and should be read as a signal of influence, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC split are read together.
One filer sets the pace, the rest trail far behind
The ranked leader holds 20 records against a fifth-place count of just 2 across the six companies in the ranking. That gap suggests the leading filer has built a defensive thicket around integrally-knitted constructions, leaving smaller entrants to file narrowly around specific yarn or process details rather than contest the core structure.
Filing activity has cooled from its 2019 peak
After peaking at 21 filings in 2019, documented activity fell to 4 by 2021 and to 0 by 2024, the last year treatable as complete. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, this should be read as a genuine cooling from an unusually active period rather than a signal that the underlying technology is exhausted.
Claims cluster on knitting process and footwear structure
D04B and A43B together anchor most of the corpus, while digital design tools (G06F), shoemaking machinery (A43D), fastenings (A43C) and laminate bonding (B32B) each appear in a small minority of records. That imbalance points to bonding chemistry and machine-integration claims as comparatively thin ground.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to knitted footwear uppers and bonding, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where they overlap
The ranking is a six-company list returned by the data endpoint, not a top-50 or top-100 cut, so read the spread rather than the exact positions.
A single filer dominates the ranked group
The leading assignee's 20 records dwarf the rest of the six-company ranking, concentrated in integrally-knitted upper and sole constructions and grip-yarn thermoforming methods.
Corporate-family co-filing is limited but present
Only two co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the stronger linking a parent filer with its innovation-arm counterpart, the weaker linking two smaller apparel-adjacent filers on a single shared record.
Smaller filers hold narrow, specific claims
Below the leader, the remaining ranked assignees each hold single-digit filings, generally narrower in scope, such as fit-consistency knitting patterns or specific yarn-selection methods rather than full upper-and-sole constructions.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| FABDESIGNS INC | 0 | — |
| Nike, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Desa America dba Pearl Izumi USA, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Nike Innovate C.V. | 0 | — |
| LITTLE CAROL | 0 | — |
| FABDESIGNS INC ENCINO | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking, or spotting a filing opening.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the leader's core claims
With one filer holding 20 of the ranked records, any integrally-knitted upper-and-sole design should be checked against that filer's claim scope before committing to a construction method.
Explore claim scope in EurekaWatch the under-claimed bonding and digital branches
B32B, A43C and G06F each cover a small share of the 41 records, which makes adhesive-free bonding and digital fit-mapping comparatively open ground for a first-mover claim.
Map white space in EurekaTrack whether 2025-2026 filings revive the 2019 peak
The -100% swing from 2021 to 2024 is real but sits inside a known publication lag; revisit the trend once 2025 filings finish publishing before concluding the category has cooled for good.
Monitor filings in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
In this dataset the ranked leader holds 20 of the records across a six-company assignee ranking, with the fifth-place filer at just 2. That gap indicates one company has built a dense claim position around integrally-knitted upper-and-sole constructions, while the remaining ranked filers hold narrower, more specific patents. Anyone entering this space should expect the leader's portfolio to be the first thing a freedom-to-operate search surfaces.
Filing peaked at 21 records in 2019 and had fallen to 0 by 2024, the most recent year in this dataset that can be treated as complete, following a -100% change from the 2021 count of 4. Because patent publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not yet be read as confirming a permanent slowdown. The honest read is that documented activity cooled sharply after 2019, and whether it recovers will only be clear once later years finish publishing.
The two dominant classes are D04B, knitting, appearing in 68.3% of the 41 records in scope, and A43B, footwear, at 61.0%. Smaller shares fall in G06F (digital data processing, 14.6%), A43D (shoemaking machinery, 7.3%), A43C (footwear fastenings, 4.9%) and B32B (layered products and laminates, 2.4%). Because a single record can carry multiple classes, these shares add up to more than 100%, and they should be read as coverage rates against the full record set rather than as parts of a single whole.
US20240180289A1, published 2024-06-06, covers an article of footwear with an integrally-knitted upper and sole built as a one-piece, unitary knit construction, where the sole incorporates a grip yarn that is thermoformed so its polymeric material reflows to form the ground-contact surface. The accompanying method claims cover integrally knitting the upper and sole together and then thermoforming the grip yarn in place. For a competitor, the practical effect is that any one-piece knit upper-and-sole design using a reflowed-yarn grip surface sits close to this claim language and warrants a detailed claim chart before proceeding.
The classes furthest from the dense core are B32B (layered products and laminates, 2.4% of the 41 records), A43C (fastenings, 4.9%) and G06F (digital data processing, 14.6%), compared with D04B and A43B which each exceed 60%. That pattern suggests adhesive-free bonding interfaces between knit uppers and soles, and digital fit-mapping systems that translate foot-scan data directly into knit patterns, are comparatively under-claimed relative to the core knitting and footwear-structure claims. A first filing in either area would face less prior art density than one targeting the integrally-knitted upper-and-sole core.
Research Knitted Footwear Uppers and Bonding in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole knitted footwear uppers and bonding corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.