Judge Julia E. Kobick of the District of Massachusetts issued a memorandum and order on claim construction in Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-12666 (D. Mass. Oct. 19, 2026), construing four disputed claim terms in the patents Nike asserts against New Balance. The opinion describes the patents as involved in Nike's Flyknit footwear technology (Op. 1).

Nine patents asserted, seven still at issue

Nike filed the case in November 2023, alleging that New Balance infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,266,749, 8,898,932, 9,060,562, 9,510,636, 9,730,484, 9,907,350, 9,918,511, 9,924,758, and 11,707,105. In August 2024, the court denied New Balance's partial motion to dismiss the claims on the '350, '511, and '758 patents. In June 2025, the court stayed the case pending inter partes review of the '749, '932, '562, '636, '484, and '511 patents (Op. 1-2).

In August 2025, the parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims and counterclaims on the '484 patent, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had found unpatentable. Nike appealed the Board's separate decision finding the '749 patent unpatentable, then voluntarily terminated that appeal in May 2026, which made the decision final. The parties then stipulated to dismissal of the '749 claims, the court lifted the stay, and a claim construction hearing was held in September 2026 (Op. 2).

The four constructions

"Article of footwear" ('932, '562, '636, '350, '511, and '758 patents). Nike argued that the term requires an upper and a sole structure and excludes hosiery, stockings, and socks. New Balance argued for any foot covering in the form of shoes, boots, slippers, or hose. The court adopted Nike's construction, pointing to claim 1 of the '932 and '636 patents, which recites an "article of footwear having an upper and a sole structure secured to the upper," and to the specifications. It noted that the construction is consistent with the Board's construction in New Balance's inter partes review of the '749 patent and with Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025) (Op. 3-6).

"A [flat] knit textile element" ('350, '511, and '758 patents). The parties agreed that the term means "a [flat-]knit, textile element that has not been cut from a larger textile web," but disagreed on whether every edge must be flat knit. Nike argued that at least two flat knit edges are enough. The court found that New Balance had the better argument, relying on Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which construed the same claim language in an earlier related patent, and construed the term to mean "a [flat-]knit, textile element that has not been cut from a larger textile web" and is therefore composed of only flat knit edges (Op. 6-9).

"A non-textile element secured to a second portion of the flat knit textile element defining the heel region of the upper" (claims 1 and 9 of the '350 patent). The question was whether the non-textile element or the flat knit textile element defines the heel region. The court adopted Nike's reading: "a non-textile element secured to a second portion of the flat knit textile element that defines the heel region of the upper" (Op. 9-11).

"Ankle part for covering at least a portion of an ankle of the wearer" (claims 11 through 14 of the '932 patent). New Balance proposed "portions of the upper that are intended to cover and extend above the lateral malleolus and the medial malleolus of the wearer," drawn from the specification. The court declined to import that language from the specification and gave the term its ordinary and customary meaning. In a footnote, responding to New Balance's argument about accused shoes, it quoted Federal Circuit precedent that "it is not appropriate for the court to construe a claim solely to exclude the accused device" (Op. 11-12 and n.4).