Nike, Inc. v. lululemon athletica canada inc.

Nike, Inc. v. lululemon athletica canada inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable, including anticipation by Amano and obviousness over Amano combined with Gorman or Flach. The court rejected Nike’s claim-construction and prior-art arguments, holding that the Board’s anticipation and motivation-to-combine findings were supported by substantial evidence. The decision underscores the difficulty of overturning PTAB fact findings on anticipation and motivation to combine where the Board credits expert testimony and the patent specification does not meaningfully narrow broad claim language. Affirmed; costs awarded to Lululemon. The challenged claims concern a wearable/portable fitness device that prompts exercise at successive exertion levels, determines heart-rate zones, and evaluates later heart-rate measurements against a target zone. On claim construction, the court agreed the phrase “based on a level of physical fitness” was broad and not limited by the specification in the way Nike proposed. The court held the Board permissibly found that physical characteristics such as stride length and weight, viewed together, could convey a user’s physical-fitness level for purposes of Amano’s disclosure. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s anticipation findings, including its treatment of Amano’s incorporated embodiments and its decision to credit Lululemon’s expert. Substantial evidence also supported the Board’s findings that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Amano with Gorman and Flach for the dependent claims. § 102 § 103 claim construction non-precedential § 102 § 103 claim construction non-precedential § 102 § 103 claim construction