Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

On November 23, 2022, Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Randall T. Garteiser of Garteiser Honea PLLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Nike, Inc. (“Nike” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged infringement of U.S. patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 8,738,794 (the “’794 patent”) entitled “Automatic Multimedia Upload for Publishing Data and Multimedia Content”; 8,892,752 (the “’752 patent”); and 9,749,847 (the “’847 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “Nike infringes, and/or induces others to infringe, the asserted patent claims via the entire Nike Adapt shoe line that connects with either the Nike Adapt iOS Mobile Application or Nike Adapt Android Mobile Application (collectively, ‘Adapt App’). Nike refused to allow Cellspin to include these Nike Adapt Accused

Instrumentalities in a prior patent infringement case.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “Nike makes, uses, offers for sale, and/or sells, and/or induces others to use, the claimed methods of the ’794 Patent. Nike has infringed, and is now infringing, the ’794 patent, including at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, in this judicial district, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Nike has practiced the accused methods of the ’794 patent at least through Nike’s efforts to test, demonstrate, and otherwise use Nike Adapt Wearables with the Adapt App.”

Plaintiff additionally alleged, “Nike has infringed, and now infringing, the ’794 Patent in this judicial district, including by jointly with its end users and/or customers, by and through the use of the Nike Adapt Wearable, Adapt App, and web services. Nike’s infringement comprises joint performance of the claimed methods by Nike and/or its member comprising acquiring and transferring data from Nike Adapt wearables to Nike web services via Nike Adapt App on a Smart Phone using Bluetooth. Further, Nike conditions receipt of the benefits of the use of Nike’s web services and Adapt applications, including storing user’s data within Nike’s web service and Adapt applications, upon performance by its customers and/or end users of one or more steps of the claimed methods.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Nike further establishes at least the manner of the performance of these steps by its customers and/or end users as defined in Nike Adapt Wearable and Adapt App, including that the customer and/or end user must create an account via the Nike web service or Nike Adapt App, link the Nike Adapt Wearable to the account, and sync the Nike Adapt Wearable to the user’s mobile device via Nike Adapt application thereon, in order to receive the noted benefits. To the extent Nike continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an infringing manner post-notice of the ’794 patent, such infringement is necessarily willful and deliberate.”

Plaintiff stated three claims for relief from alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for injunctive relief and an award of damages with reasonable royalty, interest, and costs.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.