zi said the case was filed in (and

A place for collaboration on the cFIREsim Open Source Javascript project
caicai2017
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:26 am

zi said the case was filed in (and

Postby caicai2017 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:47 am

“I am not surprised at the admiration – and the imitation – [the Flyknit] has generated," Mark Parker told a crowd of shareholders at Nike’s annual meeting in 2012. In the wings, the sneaker juggernaut’s sizable legal team was readying for battle: adidas would soon be on the receiving end of a swift and strongly-worded lawsuit, not terribly unlike the 2006 suit that Nike filed against its archrival, claiming that it was making footwear using elements of patent-protected SHOX technology. The world’s largest sportswear company wanted adidas’ Primeknit footwear shut down Nike Air Max 97 Femme and it wanted it done now.
Yes, almost immediately following the debut of adidas’ knitted footwear came a patent infringement Nike Air Max 90 Damen lawsuit, filed in a District Court in Nuremberg, Germany, in which Nike sought to prohibit adidas from making and selling the Primeknit in Germany immediately, for the duration of Nike Roshe Run Damen the litigation and depending on the outcome of the case, permanently thereafter.
"Nike has a strong heritage of innovation and leadership in footwear design and development," the company asserted in an official statement in conjunction with Adidas Superstar Dames its lawsuit filing. "Our patents are the foundation of that leadership and we protect them vigorously."
As for the choice of venue, Nike spokeswoman Mary Remuzzi said the case was filed in (and was limited in jurisdiction to) Germany because that was the only place where adidas was actually Nike Air Max 270 Damen distributing the Primeknit at the time. Adidas had not yet begun distributing its new Primeknit-bearing footwear in the U.S. or other international markets, and if Nike was to have its way, it never would.
In August 2012, just days after the closing ceremony of the London Olympics – where both brands’ knitted footwear was on display – the District Court in Nike Air Max 2017 Damen Nuremberg granted Nike's request for a temporary injunction, ordering adidas to immediately halt the production, marketing, and sale of its allegedly infringing knitted sneaker.
While it aumrrotor.es appeared that the case might be a home run for the American giant (given the court's willingness to side with Nike initially), that win was short-lived. Adidas retaliated: It argued before the court that the construction technique that underlies both its footwear and that of its rival had been used Nike Air Max 95 Damen since 1940s, and thus, was not proprietary to Nike.
In doing so, adidas’ legal team not only challenged the merit of Nike’s allegations, but more importantly, it called foul on the validity of Nike’s European patent (no. EP 1 571 938 B1), and it was victorious. Shortly thereafter, upon closer examination, the court declared that it would set aside the injunction, and ultimately, agreed with adidas’ assertion regarding the novelty of the knitting Nike Air Max 720 Womens process.
As a result, the court invalidated Nike’s patent, holding that its design process Adidas Ultra Boost Donne failed to meet the novelty element required for patentability, thereby stripping Nike of the right to continue to pursue adidas for patent infringement. The ruling also meant that adidas could legally manufacture its own shoes bearing knitted elements in Germany.

Return to “cFIREsim Open Source Project”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests