Nike is one of the best known and most recognized companies in the sports sector. In fact, Nike is the world's largest supplier and manufacturer of sneakers, clothing and other sports equipment. Nike is a leader in its industry and is making great strides in its athletic technology. Nike relies heavily on sponsorships as part of its marketing strategy; the company used the London 2012 Summer Olympics to promote its new "Flyknit" footwear technology. While the London Olympics saw battles between the world's best athletes, they also set the stage for a battle between two major corporations; Nike and Adidas. It all started with a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Adidas. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Nike identifies its mission as “Bringing inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world” (Nike, Inc). Nike is able to achieve this by showcasing its products through famous athletes, in order to market them to average, everyday athletes. Nike's sponsorships contribute significantly to the company's leadership in the sports sector. Sponsorships help spread a positive image of the company and demonstrate the company's involvement in sport. Nike promotes its products through endorsement deals with famous athletes, professional teams, and college athletic teams around the world. The company is very focused on presenting itself as a leader and as a unique company through these athletes. It's no surprise that Nike's latest advancements in footwear were showcased at the London Olympics. Nike Flyknits were worn by US gold medal decathlete Ashton Eaton; as well as Michael Phelps who accepted his record-breaking 22nd medal. Flyknits have also been worn by many other medal-winning athletes and four independent Olympic athletes (Banks, 2016). These shoes were unique on the market because they were made to look like a sock; as requested by some great athletes. The shoe was designed with a knitted fabric "upper" (referring to the top of the shoe, above the sole structure). This design created a lighter, better fitting and performance-enhancing product. Another notable aspect of this shoe was that the construction process minimized waste. Then, in July 2012, Adidas presented its new Primeknits which would appear on the market in August. Primeknits were designed the same way as Flyknits; with the use of the new knitted shape. Nike responded to this announcement by filing a patent infringement claim. The production of a similar shoe by their competitor challenged Nike's leadership in the footwear industry, and this was not taken lightly. Patent infringement occurs when you make, use, or sell another's patented product, process, or design without permission. The complaint was filed in the district court of Nuremberg, Germany. The case was handled strictly in Germany as this was the only place where Primeknit was produced, thus ensuring the court's jurisdiction. Nike requested that Adidas be banned from manufacturing and selling Primeknits until the legal dispute was resolved. It is common practice for German courts to “impose temporary injunctions on allegedly infringing products when a lawsuit is filed, but may lift the injunction after hearing the defendant” (James, 2012). The court granted Nike's request, and Nike hascontinued to push for a permanent injunction. The case centered on the European patent filed by Nike. Nike supported their decision to file a lawsuit by explaining that patents are the foundation of their leadership, which is why the company fights to protect them (Banks, 2016). The question was whether or not the Flyknit technology qualified to possess the right to be patented. For intellectual property to be patentable, the applicant “must demonstrate that the invention, discovery, process, or design is novel, useful, and non-obvious” (Clarkston, et., al. 2014). In this case, footwear technology was in question. In defense of Nike's lawsuit, Adidas presented the argument that the shoes were not copied, as they began developing them in 2008 after the Beijing Olympics. However, their strongest argument questioned the validity of Nike's patent. Adidas explained that the woven threads that make up the shoes are born from a technique developed in the 1940s. This implies that Nike Flyknits were not a "new" idea. Since they did not meet this requirement, the technology was not eligible for a patent. The case then moved to the United States. Adidas has started selling its Primeknits outside of Germany, so this case would be handled internationally. It is significant to note that there are differences in the law and legal processes between different countries. For example, regarding patent rights, the United States differs from many countries. Patent protection is granted to the first person to invent the product, process or design and not to the first person to file the patent. If the United States were to handle the situation in the opposite way to this custom, then Nike would have a clear advantage over Adidas. Adidas hoped the victory in Germany would carry over to the United States, while Nike hoped a change in location would ensure a different result. Adidas immediately took action by challenging Nike's US patent on Flyknit technology. The patent in question was patent no. 7,347,011 entitled “Footwear Article with Uppers of Fabric,” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Ag, 812 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patent was challenged through inter partes review (IPR) and Adidas' application was filed with the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The goal of using intellectual property rights was to avoid the alternative, in which Nike would file a lawsuit against Adidas. A major benefit of this is similar to the benefits of alternative dispute resolution; where the parties avoid the large costs associated with court proceedings. Through intellectual property rights, Adidas challenged all 46 claims in Nike's patent. Nike responded by requesting to invalidate claims 1-46 and amend its patent to replace them in claims 47-50. The Council agreed with Adidas, denying Nike rights to the patent and rejecting Nike's request to replace it. The Board decided that Nike could invalidate claims 1-46, but was denied substitution on the grounds that the company "failed to meet the burden of demonstrating patentability" Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Ag, 812 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Federal Cir. 2016). Since this is a civil case, the evidentiary standard in an IPR is for the petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Adidas was able to do so at the Board's discretion by citing various previously filed patents. The Board concluded that Nike's claims were in fact unpatentable because 1.) they were considered obvious due to patents.