Nike-New Balance Patent Lawsuit Paused Amid PTAB Review, Judge Rules

A federal judge has paused a high-stakes patent dispute between global sportswear giants Nike Inc. and New Balance Athletics, Inc., granting a temporary stay in litigation as the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviews several of Nike’s Flyknit patents at the heart of the case.

On June 6, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick ruled in favor of New Balance’s motion to stay the case until August 9, 2025, aligning with the expected PTAB decisions. Nike alleges that New Balance infringed on nine of its Flyknit patents across 61 different shoe models, claiming that the Boston-based company copied its innovative, lightweight knit sneaker technology.

New Balance requested the pause, citing that the PTAB is already actively reviewing six of the nine contested patents. The company argued that a stay would promote judicial efficiency and possibly narrow or eliminate the need for trial if some patents are invalidated.

Judge Kobick, in her ruling, agreed with New Balance’s position, stating that continuing the case while the PTAB deliberates could lead to duplicative proceedings. “Nike has not shown that it will suffer undue prejudice beyond the delay,” Kobick noted, indicating that a short pause would not cause significant harm to the plaintiff.

The judge also highlighted New Balance’s commitment to continue discovery during the stay, including the collection of documents and depositions from international partners. This assurance helped alleviate concerns about lost evidence or unavailable witnesses during the delay.

Nike’s Flyknit technology, first introduced in 2012, is considered a major breakthrough in performance footwear design. The company holds several patents on the material structure, stitching techniques, and manufacturing methods used to create a sock-like fit with minimal waste. Nike contends that New Balance’s knit-based designs unlawfully mirror its patented Flyknit technology.

If the PTAB invalidates some or all of the Flyknit patents under review, it could significantly alter the direction of the case, weakening Nike’s claims and reducing the number of infringing products. Conversely, if the patents are upheld, New Balance may face greater legal exposure and could be required to stop sales or negotiate licensing terms.

The litigation pause is temporary, with proceedings expected to resume following the PTAB’s decisions in August. The outcome will be closely watched by the industry, as it may set a precedent for how similar intellectual property disputes are handled between major athletic brands.

For now, both companies await the PTAB’s judgment, which could either simplify the lawsuit—or set the stage for a prolonged legal battle over innovation in athletic footwear.

Uber Faces Patent Lawsuit from Carma Technology Over Ride-Sharing Platform

Uber Technologies Inc. is currently facing a patent infringement lawsuit which is  filed by Carma Technology Corp. and Carma Technology Ltd. The lawsuit, initiated on January 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Uber’s ride-sharing platform infringes upon Carma’s patented technologies related to shared transportation systems. 

Details of the Lawsuit

Carma Technology, known for its innovations in ride-sharing solutions, holds several patents, including U.S. Patent No. US11574542B2, titled “Systems and methods for providing safety for drivers and riders in a shared transport system.”   The company claims that Uber’s platform utilizes technologies that infringe upon this and potentially other patents held by Carma.

The case, docketed as 2:2025cv00029, is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.  Carma has demanded a jury trial, seeking damages and an injunction against Uber to prevent further alleged infringement. 

Potential Implications for Uber

If the court rules in favor of Carma Technology, Uber may face significant consequences, including financial penalties and the need to alter its ride-sharing platform to avoid further infringement.  Such changes could disrupt Uber’s operations and impact its position in the competitive ride-sharing market.

This lawsuit adds to Uber’s history of legal challenges related to intellectual property.  Notably, in 2018, Uber settled a lawsuit with Waymo, Alphabet Inc.’s self-driving car unit, agreeing to pay $245 million over allegations of trade secret theft. 

Broader Impact on the Ride-Sharing Industry

The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the ride-sharing industry.  A ruling favoring Carma Technology might prompt other companies to re-evaluate their platforms for potential patent infringements, leading to increased litigation and a push for innovation that respects existing intellectual property rights.

As the case progresses, stakeholders in the ride-sharing sector will be closely monitoring developments, understanding that the verdict could set a precedent affecting technology deployment and competitive dynamics in the industry.

*This article is based on publicly available information as of June 1, 2025.*