an plotting their departure in April 2014, pitching their stu

caicai2017

By the end of 2012, both Nike and adidas had begun selling their respective knitted footwear in the U.S. Almost certainly expecting Nike to inevitably file a similar patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. (where its Flyknit-related  patents were still valid and Nike Air Max 90 Womens in effect) to prevent it from continuing to sell its knitted shoes stateside, adidas decided to take legal action of its own.
Looking to hit Nike where it would hurt the most, adidas sought to invalidate a number of Nike’s Flyknit-related patents, asking the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to review at Adidas Superstar Donne least four of Nike’s U.S. patents for the Flyknit design and technology.
In one such matter, which is still currently pending in light of a back-and-forth legal battle, adidas argued that one of Nike’s U.S. patents for the Flyknit design (patent no. 7,347,011) is invalid, as similar methods have been set forth in others’ patents, including one that was filed in 1991 for a process to create uppers that are cut from a web of textile material and then shaped and connected to a sole.
After Nike Air Max 97 Womens suffering a loss before the PTAB, Nike filed a 118-page appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2014, arguing that it, in fact, “invented” the “novel” knitted technology, that the knit is recognized as a “quantum leap in the field.”  (Note: The Federal Circuit Court would Nike Air Max 90 Donne end up sending the matter back to the PTAB to determine Nike Air Max 720 Dames whether the Flyknit would be considered patentable; siding with Nike in October 2017, the PTAB upheld its patent. Unsatisfied, adidas has since filed an appeal of its own with the Federal Court of Appeals).
Just as Nike was preparing to file its appeal in 2014, another striking battle erupted between the two giants, one that offered a remarkably telling peek into the true depth of the rivalry between Nike and adidas.In December 2014, Nike filed an explosive $10 million-plus lawsuit  against three of its former top design directors, claiming that, together, they conspired to steal millions of dollars’ worth of confidential information from Nike after being lured to adidas, where they would help create a brand-new Brooklyn-based design studio to truly rival Nike’s top-secret Innovation Nike Air Max 95 Damen Kitchen.
In its 50-page complaint, Nike alleged that NNike Free Run 3.0 Dames Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce and Mark Miner had jumped ship to adidas in violation of their explicit non-compete agreements, taking with them a "treasure trove" of Nike’s “most important and highly confidential” information, which was procured, in part, to the defendants allegedly faking a broken Nike-owned laptop, from which all of the contents were copied. To seal the deal, Dekovic, Dolce, and Miner allegedly scrubbed their e-mails and text messages which, Nike’s counsel Nike Air Huarache Dames argued, served to obstruct the availability of “evidence of their betrayals.”
Nike further contended that Dekovic, Dolce, and Miner began plotting their departure in April 2014, pitching their studio plan (one that Nike claimed was merely a knockoff of its existing design studio) to Adidas and subsequently Adidas Ultra Boost Donne bringing Adidas information about Nike's plans for the next several years in connection with its running, sportswear and soccer lines. In return, adidas reportedly – in an attempt to overthrow the giant – offered them lucrative employment contracts to jump ship from Nike.