Nike sues Lululemon for claiming yoga clothing brand Mirror home exercise display infringes its own digital training software patents
- Nike has filed a complaint accusing Lululemon of patent infringement for manufacturing and selling the Mirror Home Gym and associated mobile apps without permission
- The sneaker giant has accused its little rival of violating six patents, including over technology that allows users to exercise, target goals and socialize
- Lululemon bought Mirror, a home fitness business with interactive workout plans that includes live and on-demand classes, for approximately $ 453 million in July 2020
- Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike seeks treble damages for Lululemon’s alleged intentional infringement, along with various other remedies
Nike Inc filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Lululemon Athletica Inc of patent infringement for manufacturing and selling the Mirror Home Gym and related mobile apps, the technology of which it says is too similar to the software it launched.
In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan U.S. District Court, Nike accused its little rival of infringing six patents, including through technology that allows users to target specific levels of effort, compete with others. users and record their own performance.
Lululemon’s Mirror Home Gym is a wall mounted display that guides users through a variety of cardio classes and other exercises. The Mirror and its apps use similar technology that Nike claims to have invented and patented, including a device that motivates users to exercise, tracks their heart rates, and collects data about their activity, among other functions.
Nike, based in Beaverton, Oregon, is seeking treble damages for Lululemon’s alleged intentional violation, along with a variety of other remedies.
Mirror gyms start at $ 1,195, according to the Lululemon website. The lawsuit also names Curiouser Products, which operates under the name Mirror, as the defendant.
Lululemon’s Mirror Home Gym is the latest smart gym that can be wall hung and guide users through a variety of cardio classes and other exercises through their reflections. The smart mirror and its apps use technology similar to Nike’s patents, including a device that encourages users to exercise, monitors their heart rates, and collects data about their physical activity.
Nike said it sent Lululemon a letter on November 3, citing a list of patents it owns that are believed to have been used by the Mirror device and its apps.
Lululemon said in a statement: “The patents in question are too broad and invalid. We are confident in our position and look forward to defending it in court.
In a Dec. 10, 2021 letter to Nike, an attorney for Lululemon said the Vancouver, BC-based company “respects intellectual property” even though it has rejected Nike’s claims.
Lululemon bought Mirror, a home fitness business with an interactive workout platform offering live and on-demand classes, for around $ 453 million in July 2020.
Sportswear manufacturers have profited from the pandemic as people have been forced to work or spend more time at home and have shifted from dressier clothes to hoodies, leggings and other casual wear.
Lululemon (its head office in Vancouver, Canada pictured) bought Mirror, a home fitness business with an interactive workout platform offering live and on-demand classes, for around $ 453 million in July 2020, revolutionizing the way people train since the start of the pandemic
Sports and fitness clothing brands saw sales soar during the pandemic as people were forced to work or spend more time at home with dressier clothes for hoodies, leggings and other clothing casual.
But Lululemon warned last month that the spread of the Omicron coronavirus variant could reduce sales of its clothing amid supply chain issues and potential store closings.
It also cut its sales forecast for Mirror for the year in half, to a range of $ 125 million to $ 130 million.
As of late afternoon in New York, shares of Lululemon were down 4.5% to $ 363.62, while Nike was down 2.1% to $ 162.91.
The case is Nike Inc v Lululemon Athletica Inc et al, US District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-00082.