Suit claims Nike, Apple stole idea for Nike+ iPod Sport Kit
A little-known athletic company from Utah has filed a lawsuit that names both Nike and Apple, claiming that Nike knowingly stole its decade-old idea for the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit.
Brothers Greg and Kenny Anderson of Leaper Footwear, LLC say they invented in 1995 and successfully patented in 1998 a unique breed of footwear which -- like the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit co-developed by Nike and Apple -- measures locomotive performance parameters such as a user?s walking or running speed and/or distance traveled.
According to their complaint, filed Monday in the United States District Court for The District of Utah Central Division, Leaper?s counsel sent a letter to Nike in 2000 suggesting that the shoe maker take a license to the Anderson's patent (#5720200) and incorporate their invention into Nike shoes.
Nike reportedly wrote back two weeks later, stating that it had "no interest" in pursuing the idea.
"Six years later," the suit continues, "in May 2006, acting on Leaper?s suggestion but without contacting or seeking permission from Leaper to use the patent, Nike and Apple jointly announced their partnership to launch Leaper?s invention through the 'Nike + iPod Sport Kit'."
The "Nike + iPod Sport Kit" allows Nike+ footwear to communicate with Apple's iPod nano music player. It includes a sensor that fits into a pocket in the inner sole of Nike+ footwear, and a receiver that plugs into the bottom of an iPod nano. Information about time, distance, calories burned and pace is displayed on the iPod screen and audio feedback is announced to the user through the iPod?s earbud headphones.
In their 8-page suit, the Andersons claim that Apple and Nike have achieved "huge success" through unauthorized use of their patent. They recall comments made by Nike chief executive Mark Parker during a conference call last December in which he widely touted the sport kits, stating that users had already logged more than 3 million miles on the devices and that over 3-million Nike+ shoes had shipped.
"We expect that number to double by the year end," Parker added during the call. "Clearly our confidence in this concept has proven to be accurate."
The $30 Nike+ iPod Sport Kit | High-res photos.
As a result, the Andersons allege, Nike and Apple have generated "hundreds of millions of dollars in infringing sales" of iPod nanos, Nike + shoes, and Nike + iPod Sport Kits, "easily exposing them to liability in the tens of millions of dollars" for their infringement of Leaper?s patent.
"It is further believed that Nike and Apple?s infringement has spawned additional revenues through sales of products related to the Nike + iPod system, such as the Nike Amp + bracelet, " the suite adds.
The brothers are seeking damages in the amount to be determined at trial, a permanent injunction barring Apple and Nike from further infringement on their patent, and an order from the Court that they be awarded three times the damages assessed at trial due to the "willful and deliberate nature" of Nike's actions.
The last time Nike or Apple provided sales figures for the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit was in September of 2006, when Apple said it had sold 450,000 units in the kit's first three months on the market.
Leaper's complaint is the second to target both Apple and Nike over allegations that the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit makes unauthorized use of patented technology. In January, Colorodo-based PhatRat Technology filed a similar suit, charging both companies with infringing on four of its own patents.
Brothers Greg and Kenny Anderson of Leaper Footwear, LLC say they invented in 1995 and successfully patented in 1998 a unique breed of footwear which -- like the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit co-developed by Nike and Apple -- measures locomotive performance parameters such as a user?s walking or running speed and/or distance traveled.
According to their complaint, filed Monday in the United States District Court for The District of Utah Central Division, Leaper?s counsel sent a letter to Nike in 2000 suggesting that the shoe maker take a license to the Anderson's patent (#5720200) and incorporate their invention into Nike shoes.
Nike reportedly wrote back two weeks later, stating that it had "no interest" in pursuing the idea.
"Six years later," the suit continues, "in May 2006, acting on Leaper?s suggestion but without contacting or seeking permission from Leaper to use the patent, Nike and Apple jointly announced their partnership to launch Leaper?s invention through the 'Nike + iPod Sport Kit'."
The "Nike + iPod Sport Kit" allows Nike+ footwear to communicate with Apple's iPod nano music player. It includes a sensor that fits into a pocket in the inner sole of Nike+ footwear, and a receiver that plugs into the bottom of an iPod nano. Information about time, distance, calories burned and pace is displayed on the iPod screen and audio feedback is announced to the user through the iPod?s earbud headphones.
In their 8-page suit, the Andersons claim that Apple and Nike have achieved "huge success" through unauthorized use of their patent. They recall comments made by Nike chief executive Mark Parker during a conference call last December in which he widely touted the sport kits, stating that users had already logged more than 3 million miles on the devices and that over 3-million Nike+ shoes had shipped.
"We expect that number to double by the year end," Parker added during the call. "Clearly our confidence in this concept has proven to be accurate."
The $30 Nike+ iPod Sport Kit | High-res photos.
As a result, the Andersons allege, Nike and Apple have generated "hundreds of millions of dollars in infringing sales" of iPod nanos, Nike + shoes, and Nike + iPod Sport Kits, "easily exposing them to liability in the tens of millions of dollars" for their infringement of Leaper?s patent.
"It is further believed that Nike and Apple?s infringement has spawned additional revenues through sales of products related to the Nike + iPod system, such as the Nike Amp + bracelet, " the suite adds.
The brothers are seeking damages in the amount to be determined at trial, a permanent injunction barring Apple and Nike from further infringement on their patent, and an order from the Court that they be awarded three times the damages assessed at trial due to the "willful and deliberate nature" of Nike's actions.
The last time Nike or Apple provided sales figures for the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit was in September of 2006, when Apple said it had sold 450,000 units in the kit's first three months on the market.
Leaper's complaint is the second to target both Apple and Nike over allegations that the Nike+ iPod Sport Kit makes unauthorized use of patented technology. In January, Colorodo-based PhatRat Technology filed a similar suit, charging both companies with infringing on four of its own patents.
Comments
If not, it seems to me I can sit here all day and come up with fantastic ideas for future technologies, patent these ideas as unique, and wait for someone else to do the R&D. Once that's out of the way, I simply sue them for a few percentage points.
A bad analogy would be domain name squatting were I simply think of domain names that could be huge later, or take the names of brands and register them before the owner of the name does and squat on them to wait for the payoff. In a number of these cases I know the decision has gone against the squatter.
If coming up with fantastic ideas is all that's needed, then it's time for me to think what Apple, Microsoft and everyone else could be doing 20 years from now and secure my retirement with just a few thousand dollar investment in a patent.
I have a problem with many of these patent filings and subsequent law suits. My main question is... After patenting the idea, did they actually develop a working model and try to market the product?
It sounds like they tried to market it to at least one shoe maker.
There is no requirement to make a prototype or promote it.
Anyone have a link to the patent on Google Patents?
Sounds like they have a case to me.
Really? Doesn't sound like a Nike+ iPod device to me.
The microprocessor and display are mounted on the footwear, preferably on the tongue of the shoe, in a water resistant housing with a long life battery providing self contained operation.
Sounds like they have a case to me.
I don't know, they patented shoe with electronics built into it. Not a sensor that you attach or insert into it after the fact. Their system also doesn't seem to have an accelerometer in it, which i believe is how the nike+ sensor works.
I don't think that a shoe with with buttons and an lcd display on the tongue, that tracks your mileage, and doesn't seem to have any way to hook up to a computer to download your info equals the nike+ system. Not even close. If they had patented a system using a sensor that could hook up to a pda and track your mileage, and download it into a computer they'd have something.
Not that their patent isn't similar, but what they patented was totally unfeasible for the most part, if you build the electronics into the shoes, they're only going to last the life of the shoe, and if you're a serious runner, you might get a year out of a pair of shoes.
Yes, if they have the patent, they have the patent.
Anyone have a link to the patent on Google Patents?
Spam, I linked the patent in the article...
Best,
K
Spam, I linked the patent in the article...
Best,
K
Sorry 'bout that... these days, if I don't see a link... well, you know...
It sounds like they tried to market it to at least one shoe maker.
There is no requirement to make a prototype or promote it.
There used to be a requirement to create a model or what would likely now be called a prototype of things you were trying to patent (in the US). Sadly, that requirement hasn't been around for a long time now (the requirement existed from 1790-1880). It needs to go back into place. It would reduce the number of junk patents submitted to ones from legitimate inventors and reduce the load on the overloaded patent office to more legitimate ideas. As I was told by lawyers at one of the largest patent holding companies in the US: you really shouldn't be patenting "ideas" you should be patenting "implementations of ideas".
Not to say there is anything wrong with this person's patent ... I haven't seen it.
I don't know, they patented shoe with electronics built into it. Not a sensor that you attach or insert into it after the fact. Their system also doesn't seem to have an accelerometer in it, which i believe is how the nike+ sensor works.
I don't think that a shoe with with buttons and an lcd display on the tongue, that tracks your mileage, and doesn't seem to have any way to hook up to a computer to download your info equals the nike+ system. Not even close. If they had patented a system using a sensor that could hook up to a pda and track your mileage, and download it into a computer they'd have something.
Not that their patent isn't similar, but what they patented was totally unfeasible for the most part, if you build the electronics into the shoes, they're only going to last the life of the shoe, and if you're a serious runner, you might get a year out of a pair of shoes.
Are you guys telling me that neither Nike nor Apple applied and received patents for their system prior to taking it to market?
These companies have to have the biggest bunch of inept lawyers I've ever seen.
Really? Doesn't sound like a Nike+ iPod device to me.
The microprocessor and display are mounted on the footwear, preferably on the tongue of the shoe, in a water resistant housing with a long life battery providing self contained operation.
I think a more pertinent quote from the patent abstract would be this:
Four membrane switches are located in the sole of the footwear: a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the ball of the user's foot and a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the heel of the user's foot. The membrane switches sense the compressive pressure of the foot on the sole and detect when the foot leaves and contacts the underlying surface. A microprocessor calculates a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off and the foot strike.
That doesn't sound like the Nike+ kit at all. The Nike+ sensor is just an accelerometer mounted in the sole of the shoe. No pressure sensors involved.
And why aren't they going after every other maker of similar distance/speed recording athletic devices? They are just as similar to the the patented idea as the Nike+ kit.
A foot mounted apparatus for measuring one or more locomotive performance parameters of a person is disclosed. Such locomotive performance parameters preferably include user vertical leap time, user vertical jump distance, user walking or running speed, user trip distance traveled, and accumulated total lifetime distance traveled by the apparatus. It is preferred that the apparatus include all of the structures of an athletic shoe such as a sole, upper, tongue, and lace. Four membrane switches are located in the sole of the footwear: a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the ball of the user's foot and a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the heel of the user's foot. The membrane switches sense the compressive pressure of the foot on the sole and detect when the foot leaves and contacts the underlying surface. A microprocessor calculates a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off and the foot strike. A pair of pushbuttons connected to the microprocessor allow the user to change the mode of operation of the apparatus. The performance parameter which is output from the microprocessor is conveyed to the user either visually or aurally. The microprocessor and display are mounted on the footwear, preferably on the tongue of the shoe, in a water resistant housing with a long life battery providing self contained operation.
And here is an image of the patent
This really has nothing to do with the Nike+ iPod, which is just a pedometer in your shoe that tells your iPod what to play. the pedometer works in any shoe, not just a Nike+
Sounds like they have a case to me.
Possibly... but I don't know.
The problems I have with this, is that we know very little about the claims being made. Yet, that this is not necessarily a unique idea in the sense that there are plenty of tachometer that we can place on our bodies to monitor a person's performance output. Without the use of an iPod. So, in my view, there is very little that makes this a Unique idea. But, that is just my opinion.
My real problem is, if they do have the patent, does it make use of the iPod?
I think it is likely there is major problem in the sense that it took TWO parties to create the one product. ie: You have to buy Nike's shoes, then, Nike/Apple kit, then go out an buy an iPod. It requires two different companies to create the result of these people's claims. Was this their idea? I doubt it.
These guys claim is that they went to Nike. Never does it really mention they went to Apple. Then you have the people in Colorado [PhatRat] who are making similar complaints against the Nike/Apple Kit. Which then makes you question... Okay, so who owns the patent and to what technology are we referring to here?
If anything, it sounds messy. It sounds to me that these people made products that weren't really unique and they didn't think of the idea of attaching it to the iPod wave. Also, a Sensor inside a shoe makes more sense than a sensor that wraps around a shoe.
Where is the actual infringement since there are two different parties making the similar claims. Yet, do any of their ideas originate to use the iPod exclusively?
There used to be a requirement to create a model or what would likely now be called a prototype of things you were trying to patent (in the US). Sadly, that requirement hasn't been around for a long time now (the requirement existed from 1790-1880). It needs to go back into place. It would reduce the number of junk patents submitted to ones from legitimate inventors and reduce the load on the overloaded patent office to more legitimate ideas. As I was told by lawyers at one of the largest patent holding companies in the US: you really shouldn't be patenting "ideas" you should be patenting "implementations of ideas".
Not to say there is anything wrong with this person's patent ... I haven't seen it.
They did away with providing prototypes because the patent office ran out of space to store all that.
They did away with providing prototypes because the patent office ran out of space to store all that.
You wouldn't have to store the actual prototype anymore to keep record of one. Keep digitally notarised video or pictures on a hard-drive somewhere. It would be a whole lot better than the rough sketches that are submitted with current patent findings.
I wonder if I can patent this idea?
As philips is from the netherlands (same as I), i have seen a product that did the same, and almost looked the same. Also with a sensor in a shoe...
i guess Nike stopped the deal with Philips because of bad sales or so...
Or it was pilot based in the Netherlands..
I wonder if i can find a picture or so
There used to be a requirement to create a model or what would likely now be called a prototype of things you were trying to patent (in the US). Sadly, that requirement hasn't been around for a long time now (the requirement existed from 1790-1880). It needs to go back into place. It would reduce the number of junk patents submitted to ones from legitimate inventors and reduce the load on the overloaded patent office to more legitimate ideas. As I was told by lawyers at one of the largest patent holding companies in the US: you really shouldn't be patenting "ideas" you should be patenting "implementations of ideas".
Not to say there is anything wrong with this person's patent ... I haven't seen it.
Eh? No. Never again will we see the requirement of a working demo, except for a perpetual motion machine.
most patents are far too complex, and often too expensive, or too large to demo.
It was stopped for good reasons.