More like this
Judge 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 StatesLululemon
CONFIRMED87% CONFIDENCE177 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.0.81Federal 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 States
CONFIRMED86% CONFIDENCE50 days agoThe nonprecedential opinion in No. 2024-2134 reads "Decided: August 5, 2026"; the docket shows it entered at 09:10 AM that day.[1]The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and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.0.77Judge Lets Investors' Securities Suit Against Lululemon Go Ahead
40, Centre Street, Civic Center, Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York County, New York, 10007, United States
CONFIRMED91% CONFIDENCE177 days agoDocket entry 58, dated Mar 31, 2026: "ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion to Dismiss" by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.[1]A Manhattan federal judge partly denied Lululemon's motion to dismiss a shareholder class action over its 2023-24 statements, finding plausible claims of misleading statements and scienter, citing alleged insider trading.0.74Nike Settles Its StockX Counterfeit and NFT Lawsuit Before Trial
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500, Pearl Street, Five Points, Lower Manhattan, Manhattan, New York County, New York, 10007, United StatesNike
CONFIRMED87% CONFIDENCE1.1 years agoThe stipulation of voluntary dismissal in Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983 (S.D.N.Y.), is stamped "Filed 08/29/25".[1]Nike and StockX filed a stipulation on 29 August 2025 dismissing Nike's 2022 trademark suit over StockX's Vault NFTs and fake sneakers, about six weeks before a Manhattan jury trial was due to start; the terms were not disclosed.0.74EEOC Drops Its Nike Subpoena Case After Nike Hands Over the Records
Thomas F. Eagleton Federal Courthouse, 111, South 10th Street, Downtown, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63102, United States
CONFIRMED88% CONFIDENCE42 days agoThe Memorandum and Order dismissing the case without prejudice is "Dated this 13th day of August 2026".[1]A federal judge in St. Louis dismissed the EEOC's subpoena enforcement action against Nike on 13 August 2026 at the agency's request, after it told the court Nike had produced the documents its DEI-bias subpoena sought.0.72Shoppers Sue Nike Over IEEPA Tariff Refund 'Double Recovery'
CONFIRMED85% CONFIDENCE139 days agoThe class action complaint in Caldwell v. Nike, Inc., 3:26-cv-00923, is stamped "Filed 05/08/26".[1]Seven consumers filed a proposed class action against Nike in federal court in Oregon on 8 May 2026, saying it passed IEEPA tariff costs on through higher prices and should not keep the refunds it stands to get after the Supreme Court struck the tariffs down.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% CONFIDENCE44 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.0.71Shoppers File Class Action Seeking Lululemon's Tariff Refunds
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231, Shelby Street, Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, 48226, United States
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE181 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.0.71Judge Trims Nike Investor Suit to One Donahoe 'Innovation Pipeline' Remark
Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse, 1000, Southwest 3rd Avenue, Downtown, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, 97204, United States
CONFIRMED83% CONFIDENCE177 days agoThe Opinion and Order in In re Nike, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:24-cv-00974-AN, is "DATED this 31st day of March, 2026".[1]U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson in Portland dismissed most of a securities class action over Nike's direct-to-consumer strategy on 31 March 2026, letting claims against Nike and former CEO John Donahoe go ahead over one September 2023 statement.0.71Hagens Berman Files Second Tariff-Refund Class Action Against Lululemon
CONFIRMED89% CONFIDENCE86 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.0.70Lululemon 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% CONFIDENCE259 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.0.69Lululemon 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.0.68