Nike’s Flyknit Technology, launched in 2012, revolutionized footwear manufacturing by using precisely engineered yarns and fabrics to knit lightweight, form-fitting uppers directly to shape, aiming to deliver a second-skin feel for runners. This approach not only improves performance with targeted flexibility and support but also cuts waste by around 60%. Each Flyknit upper uses 6–7 recycled plastic bottles, supporting Nike’s move toward more sustainable design.
The Flyknit Racer was released right around the 2012 London Olympics and has gained popularity since then. In March 2018, Nike introduced the next generation of its Flyknit technology, evolving from traditional flat-knit uppers to a 360-degree, anatomically shaped design that fully wraps the foot. This new structure, created using a closed-loop knit and thermoforming process, provides a snug, second-skin fit that helps reduce foot movement for better agility and control.
Such an innovation has not only “reshaped” athletic footwear but also prompted Nike to take an active role in enforcing its Flyknit IP. The resulting disputes have produced mixed outcomes, some tilted in Nike’s favor, while others led to the cancellation of certain claims. In this article, we explore key litigation surrounding Flyknit, highlight the patents Nike has asserted, and lastly take a closer look at the scope of its patenting activity in this space.
Flyknit’s key patent litigation and outcomes
Nike v. Adidas
Nike’s first Flyknit-related patent litigation began in 2012 against Adidas, following the launch of Adidas’s Primeknit shoes. Nike initially won an injunction in Germany, but Adidas brought the dispute in the U.S. and filed for an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011. After the PTAB instituted its decision, Nike filed a motion to cancel claims 1-46, and requested substitute claims 47-50. In its final written decision in 2014, the PTAB granted Nike’s request to cancel the claims but denied the claim substitution, on grounds of obviousness.
The patent in question, titled “Article of footwear having a textile upper”, discloses a footwear upper as a single material element with one-piece construction, wherein the elements are not joined together with seams or other connections.
In NIke’s efforts to submit substitute claims, the petitioner, Adidas, cited a knitting textbook (Knitting Technology: A Comprehensive Handbook and Practical Guide. Spencer, 2001) wherein it was later shown that “forming apertures by omitting stitches was a well-known technique”. The court agreed and further said: “the omission of stitches was a well-known technique in the field of knitting for forming apertures, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use such a known technique to form the plurality of apertures,” thereby ruling substitute claim 49 as obvious.
Nike renewed its legal battle with Adidas in 2022, filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission and a lawsuit in Oregon, claiming Adidas’s Primeknit shoes infringed Flyknit patents. In August 2022, both companies reached a confidential settlement and agreed to dismiss all related cases, with each covering its own legal costs. Nike was represented by Christopher Renk of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer while Adidas was represented by Mitchell Stockwell and Matias Ferrario of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.
Nike v. Puma
In 2018, Nike sued Puma, asserting that the latter used three of its patented technologies without permission: Flyknit uppers, Air cushioning, and cleat systems. Nike argued that Puma’s knit shoes, like the IGNITE Proknit and Mostro Bubble Knit, copied its Flyknit design by using lightweight, seamless uppers made for support and breathability.
Nike’s asserted Flyknit patents against Puma
| U.S. Patent No. 7,637,032 | Footwear structure with textile upper member | |
| U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 | Article of footwear having a textile upper | |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,078,488 | Article of footwear incorporating a lenticular knit structure | Petition |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046 | Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with inlaid tensile elements and method of assembly | Petition |
Puma filed various petitions before the PTAB, arguing that the Flyknit patents are anticipated and/or obvious. In 2019, both Puma and Nike agreed to settle. The case was finally settled in 2020. Banner Witcoff represented Nike.
Nike v. Lululemon
In 2023, Nike continued its Flyknit enforcement by filing a lawsuit against Lululemon. The suit targeted Lululemon’s Chargefeel, Blissfeel, and Strongfeel sneakers for allegedly infringing multiple Flyknit patents. In March 2025, the jury sided with Nike and awarded $355,450 in damages. Arnold & Porter represented Nike.
Nike’s asserted patents against Lululemon
| U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 | Article of footwear having a textile upper |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,375,046 | Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with inlaid tensile elements and method of assembly |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484 | Article of footwear having a flat knit upper construction or other upper construction |
Nike v. New Balance, Skechers
Later in 2023, Nike filed similar lawsuits against New Balance and Skechers, accusing various knit footwear lines, such as Fresh Foam, FuelCell, Ultra Flex, and Glide-Step, of infringing its Flyknit technology. Both cases are ongoing.
The following discussion will focus on the following key patents asserted in the Nike v. New Balance case.
| U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 | Article of footwear having a textile upper |
| U.S. Patent No. 8,898,932 | Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484 | Article of footwear having a flat knit upper construction or other upper construction |
| U.S. Patent No. 11,707,105 | Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with an integral knit ankle cuff |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,510,636 | Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with an integral knit tongue |
Pre-shaped knitted uppers for simplified construction
U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 discloses an efficient method for producing footwear uppers from a single knitted textile element. The textile can include different textures or performance zones by varying stitch configurations and is pre-shaped during production. Specific edges are joined to form the upper, defining regions such as the lateral, medial, instep, heel, and lower areas, thereby creating the interior void for the foot.
This approach results in a lightweight, breathable, and customizable upper that simplifies manufacturing and can be applied to Nike running shoes, basketball shoes, hiking boots, and casual styles. The sole remains largely conventional, typically using foam for cushioning and rubber for traction, with optional features such as fluid bladders or support columns.
The patent, titled “Article of footwear having a textile upper”, was filed on September 20, 2011, and was granted on September 18, 2012. The patent listed Bhupesh Dua and Edward Nathaniel Thomas as inventors and was legally represented by Banner & Witcoff.
Knit designs with built-in support and stretch
U.S. Patent No. 8,898,932 describes a single knitted component with varying textures, thicknesses, and stretch zones. The unitary knit covers both foot and ankle regions, with less stretch in the foot for support and more elasticity in the ankle for comfort and mobility.
Tubular knit structures and inlaid strands can form lacing channels and other functional features without separate parts. Thermally bonded skin layers add durability or aesthetic finishing in high-wear areas, applicable to Nike’s performance footwear that requires precise support and fit.
The patent, titled “Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component”, was filed on May 9, 2014, and was granted on December 2, 2014. The patent listed Phil Woodman, Doug D. Wilken, Tetsuya T. Minami, and James Molyneux as inventors. Legal representation was provided by Plumsea Law Group.
Three-dimensional knit structures for performance
U.S. Patent No. 9,730,484 details a flat-knitted upper formed from one or more mechanically manipulated yarns, allowing multiple layers and knit types. This enables domed, three-dimensional structures, loops, straps, and channels directly in the knit. Integrated functional elements provide structural support and variable stretch, improving fit, breathability, and durability. These features are relevant to Nike’s Flyknit technology and other performance-oriented designs.
The patent, titled “Article of footwear having a flat knit upper construction or other upper construction”, was filed on November 22, 2013, and was granted on August 15, 2017. The patent listed Bhupesh Dua and Edward Nathaniel Thomas as inventors and was represented by Andrew A . Hufford.
Knitted uppers with integrated ankle cuffs
U.S. Patent No. 11,707,105 introduces a one-piece, flat-knitted upper with an integral ankle cuff. The knit forms both the interior void and exterior surface, extending through forefoot, midfoot, heel, and instep areas. Multiple yarn types and layers provide targeted stretch, padding, or reinforcement.
Functional features like lacing channels and ankle zones are knit directly into the fabric. The sole, including cleats for soccer shoes, is secured directly to the upper, creating a fully integrated and durable footwear design that is applicable to Nike’s high-performance cleated and training shoes.
The patent, titled “Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with an integral knit ankle cuff”, was filed on June 22, 2020, and was granted on July 25, 2023. The patent listed Denis Dekovic, John Droege, Windra Fahmi, Jeongwoo Lee, Daniel A. Podhajny, Karl Seamarks and Doug D. Wilken as inventors. The patent was represented by Scott Strohm, Clinton Newton, Joseph Kendrick, et al from Shook, Hardy & Bacon.
Knitted tongues for flexibility and ease of assembly
U.S. Patent No. 9,510,636 focuses on a one-piece flat-knitted upper with an integral knit tongue. The tongue extends through the throat area of the upper, incorporating raised lace elements. Partially integrated along the lateral and medial sides with a free rear portion for flexibility, the tongue uses multiple yarn types, including elastic yarn for targeted stretch, cushioning, and support.
The patent, titled “Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with an integral knit tongue”, was filed on February 28, 2013, and was granted on December 6, 2016. The inventors are Bhupesh Dua, Bruce Huffa, Adrian Meir, and Benjamin A. Shaffer. Brinks Gilson & Lione represented Nike in the patent filing.
Collectively, these patents reflect Nike’s evolution from multi-material assemblies to fully knitted, unitary constructions that simplify manufacturing, improve fit and comfort, and integrate functional elements directly into the textile structure. These innovations are particularly relevant to Nike’s Flyknit line and other performance footwear that demands precision engineering, breathability, and lightweight design.
A closer look at Nike’s Flyknit Patent Portfolio
Flyknit, considered as one of the best inventions in 2012, introduced a new way to make shoes using engineered yarns to create lightweight, sock-like uppers. This innovation enhanced performance while also reducing material waste, making sustainability a key part of the design from the beginning.
Patent filings increased significantly from 2012 to 2017, reaching the highest in 2016 with over 70 filings. This reflected Nike’s strong effort to protect its intellectual property as Flyknit became central to its product strategy. During this same period, Nike’s business was growing rapidly. In fiscal year 2015, the company reported $30.6 billion in revenue, a 10 percent increase over the previous year.
After 2017, the number of granted patents and applications began to decline, suggesting that Nike had secured the core elements of the Flyknit technology. Applications continued through 2023, but in smaller numbers, suggesting a focus on refining existing designs or exploring new technologies.
Nike’s Flyknit Technology: Top Law Firms
Shook, Hardy & Bacon handled most of Nike’s Flyknit-related patents, followed by Brinks Gilson & Lione (now merged with Crowell and Moring). This aligns with our previous blog, where we identified the same firms as key representatives for Nike’s general patent filings.
Several other firms contributed in smaller but notable ways. Plumsea Law Group and Klarquist Sparkman assisted with 24 and 18 filings respectively. Firms like Honigman, Thomas | Horstemeyer, Schwegman, Quinn IP Law, Banner & Witcoff, and Bookoff McAndrews also handled select filings. We also identified patent attorney, Christopher Gerardot, as one of the key representatives.
Related reading: Nike x Hyperice: The patents powering “wearable recovery”
Note: The image of shoes used in this article is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual flyknit shoes developed by Nike.
