CAFC-PTOMay 13, 2026·24-2074·Affirmed.
Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision in IPR2023-00180 under Fed. Cir. R. 36, so the Board's decision on appeal by Nike stands. The judgment gives no opinion and does not describe the Board's ruling or the grounds for affirmance.
Why It Matters
Nike's appeal from the Board's IPR decision failed, so that decision stands, but the Rule 36 judgment gives no reasoning, so counsel should look to the Board's decision and the briefing for substance.
Full Summary
Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision in IPR2023-00180 under Fed. Cir. R. 36, so the Board's decision on appeal by Nike stands. The judgment gives no opinion and does not describe the Board's ruling or the grounds for affirmance.
Nike's appeal from the Board's IPR decision failed, so that decision stands, but the Rule 36 judgment gives no reasoning, so counsel should look to the Board's decision and the briefing for substance.
Affirmed.
Nike, Inc. appealed from a PTAB decision in IPR2023-00180; Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. and Lululemon USA Inc. are the appellees.
Result: the court affirmed the Board's decision in full. A panel of Judges Dyk, Stoll, and Stark ruled per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 after oral argument by both sides.
The judgment does not identify the patent, the challenged claims, the issues, or the Board's specific ruling, so the grounds for affirmance are not stated.
Because the Rule 36 judgment has no reasoning, and is designated nonprecedential, it offers no guidance on any legal question.
Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential
Key Points
- Nike, Inc. appealed from a PTAB decision in IPR2023-00180; Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. and Lululemon USA Inc. are the appellees.
- Result: the court affirmed the Board's decision in full. A panel of Judges Dyk, Stoll, and Stark ruled per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 after oral argument by both sides.
- The judgment does not identify the patent, the challenged claims, the issues, or the Board's specific ruling, so the grounds for affirmance are not stated.
- Because the Rule 36 judgment has no reasoning, and is designated nonprecedential, it offers no guidance on any legal question.
How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the court's opinion or order; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy
New to Federal Circuit? See our Federal Circuit page