Puma and Brooks Sports Settle Patent Disputes Over Running Shoes

SEATTLE, Wash. — Puma SE and Brooks Sports Inc., a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, have resolved their ongoing legal disputes concerning patent and trademark infringements related to running shoes. The settlement, announced on Monday, follows both companies’ motions to dismiss their lawsuits with prejudice, which ensures that the cases cannot be reopened.

The litigation began in 2022 when Puma accused Brooks of infringing on its trademark rights through an advertising campaign that utilized the name “Nitro.” Puma claimed that this violated its rights associated with its line of running shoes that use the same name and also alleged that Brooks copied its proprietary foam-molding technology, particularly in the Aurora BL running shoes. Brooks rebutted these claims, asserting that “Nitro” was used solely to describe the technology in its nitrogen-infused midsoles.

In June 2024, Puma escalated the matter by filing another suit in Seattle, alleging that Brooks’ Hyperion running shoes infringed multiple patents. Brooks characterized this lawsuit as a “baseless action” designed to exert pressure in the ongoing trademark dispute. On September 2024, Brooks launched its own suit in Virginia, seeking a judicial declaration that its Glycerin running shoes did not infringe any of Puma’s patents. Earlier this week, Brooks confirmed that it had reached a settlement in principle regarding this case as well.

The resolution of these disputes comes as significant relief for both companies, with lawyers representing Puma and Brooks issuing statements acknowledging the importance of settling the litigation amicably. Johanna Wilbert, one of Puma’s attorneys, expressed that it was in the best interest of both parties to resolve the matters without further court proceedings. Brooks’ legal counsel also emphasized the value of resolving legal challenges to focus on their respective business operations.

This series of lawsuits stems from a highly competitive footwear market where both companies fiercely protect their brand names and technologies. The case has attracted attention as it highlights the complexities of intellectual property in the sportswear industry, particularly regarding trademarks and patents on innovative technologies.

The court filings referenced pertain to Puma SE v. Brooks Sports Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The specific cases involved are Nos. 2:23-cv-00116 and 2:24-cv-00940.