Federal Judge Tosses Jury Verdict — Lululemon Wins After Nike Flyknit Patent Found Invalid

For years, Nike treated its Flyknit technology as something closer to a fortress than a footwear innovation: suing Puma, Adidas, New Balance, and Skechers in turn, using U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 as the legal architecture behind some of the most commercially significant knit uppers in athletic footwear. That fortress cracked open on March 31, when U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian in Manhattan ruled that the core claims of that patent are invalid, erasing a $355,450 jury verdict against Lululemon and, in the process, potentially reshaping who gets to make a seamless-knit sneaker.

Subramanian granted Lululemon's motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the asserted claims of the '749 patent were invalid for obviousness under U.S. patent law, effectively wiping out the jury's damages award in full. Nike "is not entitled to any damages," the judge wrote. The court also rejected Nike's separate bid to increase the now-nullified award.

The litigation focused on several of Lululemon's running and training models, including the Blissfeel, Blissfeel 2, Chargefeel Low, and Strongfeel shoes. Nike had sought damages representing at least 5 percent of the revenues generated from these specific products. The suit was filed in January 2023, and a jury sided with Nike in March 2025, awarding the damages Subramanian has now wiped away. While Lululemon was initially found to have infringed the '749 patent through the importation and sale of those models, it did not infringe claims of a second patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046.

Lululemon argued that the claimed invention was not novel, but rather an obvious combination of pre-existing textile manufacturing techniques, namely warp knitting, cutting textile elements from larger surrounding structures, and incorporating those components into finished products. That argument ultimately gained traction. The judge determined the technology would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the field at the time of its invention, a finding that goes to the patent's legitimacy from the start, not merely its application to Lululemon's shoes.

The implications stretch well beyond one courtroom. Nike had enforced the Flyknit portfolio aggressively, filing suits against Puma, Adidas, New Balance, and Skechers over knit footwear lines including Fresh Foam, FuelCell, Ultra Flex, and Glide-Step. A judicial finding that the underlying claims were always obvious dismantles that enforcement posture at its foundation. Engineered knit uppers, now a standard construction across performance and athleisure footwear alike, are considerably harder for any single company to monopolize.

For consumers and competing brands, the practical effect is real: more labels can build seamless knit silhouettes, iterate faster, and bring them to market without the legal shadow of Flyknit litigation hovering over the design process. Prices on performance knit styles have room to compress as the competitive field widens and design timelines shorten.

The sustainability dimension cuts both ways. Knit construction has long been positioned as inherently low-waste, the one-piece upper eliminating the scrap material that panel-cut manufacturing generates, with some knit yarns incorporating recycled content. A more open competitive landscape could accelerate adoption of these cleaner techniques across the industry. But scale complicates the picture: more brands building more knit uppers, many of them from synthetic polyester and nylon, also means more garments shedding microplastics through washing and wear. Democratizing a lower-waste construction method is not the same as producing a lower-impact industry.

Nike still holds other Flyknit-related patents, and the litigation with Lululemon is not fully resolved. But Judge Subramanian's ruling signals that the claims Nike leaned on most aggressively were always on shakier ground than its decade-long enforcement strategy let on.