Nike is one of the most well-known and recognized companies in the sports industry. In fact, Nike is the world's largest supplier and manufacturer of sports shoes, clothing and other sports equipment. Nike is a leader in its industry and is making advancements in its athletic technology. Nike relies heavily on recommendations as part of its marketing strategy; the company used the London 2012 Summer Olympics to promote its new “Flyknit” shoe technology. While the London Olympics were the scene of battles between the world's best athletes, they also paved the way for a battle between two major companies: Nike and Adidas. It started with a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Adidas. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the 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 goal by introducing its products to popular athletes, in order to market them to average, everyday athletes. Nike's endorsements contribute greatly to the company's leadership in the sports industry. The endorsements help to disseminate a positive image of the company and demonstrate the company's involvement in sport. Nike promotes its products through sponsorship deals with famous athletes, professional teams, and college sports teams around the world. The company strives to present itself as a leader and a unique company through these athletes. It's no surprise that Nike's latest advancements in the footwear industry were showcased at the London Olympics. Nike Flyknits were worn by American gold medal-winning decathlete Ashton Eaton; as well as Michael Phelps as he accepted his record 22nd medal. Flyknits have also been worn by several other medal-winning athletes and four independent Olympic athletes (Banks, 2016). These shoes were unique on the market because they were designed to look like a sock; as requested by some major athletes. The shoe was designed with a knitted textile “upper” (referring to the upper part of the shoe, above the sole structure). This design created a lighter, more form-fitting, performance-enhancing product. Another remarkable aspect of this shoe was that the construction process minimized waste. Then, in July 2012, Adidas revealed their new Primeknits which would appear on the market in August. Primeknits were designed similarly to Flyknits; with use of the new knitted form. Nike responded to this announcement by filing a complaint for patent infringement. The production of such a similar shoe by its competitor called into question Nike's leadership in the shoe industry, and it was not something that was taken lightly. Patent infringement occurs when someone makes, uses, or sells another person's patented product, process, or design without authorization. The complaint was filed in a district court in Nuremberg, Germany. The case was handled strictly in Germany, as that was the only place where Primeknits were manufactured, giving the court jurisdiction. Nike requested that Adidas be banned from producing and selling Primeknits until the dispute was resolved. It is common for German courts to "impose temporary injunctions on allegedly infringing products when an action is filed, but may lift the injunction after hearingthe defendant” (James, 2012). The court granted Nike's request, and Nike continued to push for a permanent injunction. The case centered around the European patent filed by Nike. Nike justified its decision to take legal action by explaining that patents are the foundation of its leadership and that is why the company fights to protect them (Banks, 2016). The question was whether or not Flyknit technology was qualified to possess the right to be patented. For intellectual property to be patentable, the applicant “must prove that the invention, discovery, process or design is new, useful and non-obvious” (Clarkston, et., al. 2014). In this case, shoe technology was to blame. To defend itself against Nike's lawsuit, Adidas presented the argument that the shoes were not copied because they began developing them in 2008 after the Beijing Olympics. However, their most valuable argument questioned the validity of Nike's patent. Adidas explained that the interwoven threads that make up the shoes came from a technique developed in the 1940s. This implies that Nike Flyknits were not a "new" idea. As they did not meet this requirement, the technology could not be patented. The case then moved to the United States. Adidas has started selling its Primeknits outside of Germany, so this matter would be handled internationally. It is important to note that there are differences between the law and legal procedures from country to country. For example, when it comes to patent rights, the United States differs from many countries. Patent protection is granted to the first person to invent the product, process, or design, as opposed to the first person to file the patent. If the United States were to handle this situation in a manner opposite to this custom, then Nike would hold a clear advantage over Adidas. Adidas hoped the victory in Germany would carry over to the United States, while Nike hoped a change of venue would yield a different result. Adidas took immediate action by challenging Nike's US patent on Flyknit technology. The patent in question was patent no. 7,347,011 entitled “Article of footwear having a textile upper”, Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Ag, 812 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patent was challenged through inter partes review (IPR) and Adidas' petition was filed with the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The aim of relying on IPR was to avoid the alternative of Nike taking legal action against Adidas. A big advantage of this solution is similar to those of alternative dispute resolution methods; in which parties avoid the high costs associated with legal proceedings. Through IPR, Adidas challenged all 46 claims in Nike's patent. Nike responded by requesting that claims 1 through 46 be canceled and its patent amended by replacing them with claims 47 through 50. The Board found in favor of Adidas, denying Nike rights to the patent and rejecting the request for substitution of Nike. The Board ruled that Nike could invalidate claims 1-46, but was denied substitution on the basis that the company "did not bear the burden of demonstrating patentability" Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Ag, 812 F.3d 1326, 1329. (Fed. Cir. 2016). Since this is a civil matter, the standard of proof under an IPR is that the applicant prove non-patentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Adidas was able to do this at the discretion of the Board by citing various previously filed patents. The Commission concluded that Nike's claims were in fact not..