More like this
Federal Circuit Upholds Lululemon Win Against Nike Fitness-Watch Patent
Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717, Madison Place Northwest, Ward 2, Washington, District of Columbia, 20005, United StatesLululemon
CONFIRMED86% CONFIDENCE51 days agoThe nonprecedential opinion in No. 2024-2134 reads "Decided: August 5, 2026"; the docket shows it entered at 09:10 AM that day.[1]The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling, won by Lululemon, that every challenged claim of Nike's patent on a heart-rate and fitness watch console is unpatentable.0.74Federal Circuit Upholds Lululemon Win Against Nike Workout-Sharing Patent
Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717, Madison Place Northwest, Ward 2, Washington, District of Columbia, 20005, United States
CONFIRMED86% CONFIDENCE135 days agoThe nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment in No. 2024-2074 is dated "May 13, 2026" and stamped "Filed: 05/13/2026"; the docket shows it entered at 09:40 AM that day.[1]The Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling, won by Lululemon, that the challenged claims of Nike's patent on sharing recorded workouts to social networking sites are unpatentable.0.73Shoppers File Class Action Seeking Lululemon's Tariff Refunds
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231, Shelby Street, Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, 48226, United States
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE182 days agoThe class action complaint in Case 2:26-cv-11029 is stamped "Filed 03/27/26".[1]Four Michigan shoppers sued Lululemon in Detroit federal court, claiming it passed IEEPA tariff costs on to customers through higher prices and should share any government refunds with them.0.72Lululemon Sues the US for a Refund of Trump's IEEPA Tariffs
James L. Watson U.S. Court of International Trade Building, 1, Lafayette Street, Civic Center, Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York County, New York, 10007, United States
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE260 days agoThe complaint in Court No. 26-00465 is stamped "Filed 01/08/26".[1]Lululemon USA sued the United States in the Court of International Trade for a full refund, with interest, of the emergency-powers tariffs it paid on imports, weeks before the Supreme Court struck them down.0.72Lululemon Shareholders Back Declassifying the Board at the 2026 Meeting
1818, Cornwall Avenue, Kitsilano, Vancouver, Metro Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia, V6J 4M6, Canada
CONFIRMED88% CONFIDENCE92 days agoThe 8-K reports the results of "the 2026 annual meeting of stockholders held on June 25, 2026"; the definitive proxy sets it for June 25, 2026 at 8:00 a.m. Pacific Time, online.[1]At an uncontested annual meeting after the Wilson settlement, shareholders elect Chip Bergh, Esi Eggleston Bracey and Teri List and back Chip Wilson's proposal to declassify the board by 73.1 million votes to 0.3 million.0.72Lululemon and Costco End Their Dupes Lawsuit
United States Courthouse, 350, West 1st Street, Civic Center, Downtown, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California, 90012, United States
CONFIRMED87% CONFIDENCE45 days agoDocket entry 103 is the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss filed Aug 11, 2026, and entry 104 (Aug 12, 2026) says "On August 11, 2026, parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice" and dismisses the action.[1]Lululemon and Costco filed a joint stipulation dismissing the remaining claims of the dupes suit with prejudice, and the Los Angeles court closed the case the next day, months before a March 2027 jury trial.0.71Judge Throws Out Nike's $355,450 Shoe Patent Verdict Against Lululemon
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500, Pearl Street, Five Points, Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York County, New York, 10007, United States
CONFIRMED87% CONFIDENCE178 days agoThe opinion and order in Nike v. lululemon (23-cv-771) is stamped "Filed 03/31/26" and grants lululemon's motion for judgment as a matter of law.[1]A Manhattan federal judge ruled Nike's warp-knitted shoe upper patent invalid as obvious and wiped out the $355,450 jury award against Lululemon's Blissfeel and Chargefeel sneakers.0.71Hagens Berman Files Second Tariff-Refund Class Action Against Lululemon
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE87 days agoThe class action complaint in No. 3:26-cv-05708 (W.D. Wash., at Tacoma) is stamped "Filed 06/30/26".[1]Two Michigan shoppers represented by Hagens Berman sued Lululemon in Washington federal court, seeking a nationwide class over tariff-driven price rises and a share of its IEEPA refunds.0.71Nike Drops Its Mirror Patent Suit Against Lululemon
40, Centre Street, Civic Center, Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York County, New York, 10007, United States
CONFIRMED88% CONFIDENCE9 days agoThe stipulation of voluntary dismissal in 1:22-cv-00082 is stamped "Filed 09/16/26" and signed "Dated: September 16, 2026".[1]Nike and Lululemon stipulated to dismiss, with prejudice, Nike's 2022 suit claiming Lululemon's Mirror home gym infringed its fitness-tech patents, after the patent office struck down most of the asserted claims.0.69Lululemon Sues Costco Over Alleged Dupes
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE1.2 years agoThe complaint's header reads "Filed 06/27/25" in Case 2:25-cv-05864 in the Central District of California.[1]Lululemon filed a trade-dress, design-patent and trademark suit in Los Angeles federal court accusing Costco of selling knockoffs of its Scuba hoodies, Define jackets and ABC pants, including a Kirkland-brand pant and Danskin, Jockey, Spyder and Hi-Tec tops.0.69Lululemon's Deadline to Add an Apparel Expert to Its Board
1818, Cornwall Avenue, Kitsilano, Vancouver, Metro Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia, V6J 4M6, Canada
SCHEDULED83% CONFIDENCEin 6 daysThe 8-K says the board will "take all necessary steps to appoint an additional new independent director with apparel product and brand expertise to the Board by October 1, 2026".[1]Under its settlement with Chip Wilson, Lululemon must appoint another independent director with apparel product and brand expertise by 1 October 2026, subject to Wilson's approval.0.69Supreme Court Refuses Pirani's Last Appeal in the Slack Direct-Listing Case
Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1st Street Northeast, Ward 6, Washington, District of Columbia, 20543, United StatesSalesforce
CONFIRMED91% CONFIDENCE354 days agoThe Supreme Court's[1][3] order list for 'MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2025' lists 25-44 Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc. under 'CERTIORARI DENIED'.The justices denied a Slack investor's petition, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit's order to throw out his securities suit over Slack's 2019 direct listing on the NYSE.0.68