Nike suffers setback in Lululemon ‘mirror gym’ dispute
PTAB ruled key claims of Nike's home gym equipment patents unpatentable | Decision follows Lululemon's challenge and adds a new dimension to the broader patent conflict over home gym and app tech between the two sportswear giants.
Lululemon Athletica’s US and Canadian divisions have secured a victory in their patent dispute against Nikeover Lululemon’s Mirror Gym and coinciding app.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has ruled in favour of Lululemon, deciding key claims of two of Nike's patents relating to home gym equipment are unpatentable.
The decisions, made June 25, followed a request for an inter partes review (IPR) filed by Lululemon, which targeted multiple claims of Nike’s patents.
This move was part of a broader strategy in the pair's ongoing legal conflict, which includes multiple other patent disputes. Nike had previously taken legal action against Lululemon in a US district court, a case that is currently stayed pending these IPR outcomes.
The PTAB issued two decisions on 25 June ruling that five claims from US patent number 10,188,930 and eight claims from US patent number 9,259,615 are unpatentable based on prior art and obviousness grounds.
The patents cover methods for generating fitness and athleticism scores from sensor data.
Nike’s system aimed to measure and score various fitness attributes like endurance, flexibility, strength, speed, and agility during athletic activities.
Mirror Home Gym
Nike accused Lululemon of infringing on six of its fitness tech patents by producing and selling the Mirror Gym and its associated mobile app, January 2022, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Nike claimed that Lululemon’s Mirror Home Gym system, which includes features like a digital heart rate monitor, exercise alerts, and methods for collecting and presenting athletic data, violated its patents.
The specific patents in question were the ‘930 and ‘615 patents, along with US patent numbers 8,620,413; 9,278,256; 10,232,220; and 10,923,225.
Nike asked the court to rule that Lululemon had infringed on these patents, to stop it from selling the infringing products, and to order Lululemon to pay triple damages.
In May 2024, the PTAB found all claims of Nike's '220 patent and some claims of the '413 patent invalid.
The '220 patent was deemed obvious due to prior art, specifically a patent application called Sutton.
While eight claims of the '413 patent were upheld, others were invalidated as either anticipated or obvious.
These two patents were part of the lawsuit in the New York federal court. The court had temporarily paused the case after Lululemon requested a stay, citing the ongoing challenges at the PTAB.
Lululemon sought to pause Nike's infringement claims against it and its fitness subsidiary, Curiouser Products. Both were accused of using Nike's digital sport technologies to develop "The Mirror Home Gym" and its mobile apps.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
