Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 17, 2025

Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:23-cv-00771
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Nike v. lululemon, Judge Subramanian granted lululemon’s request to file three figures under seal in a letter brief.

Who this affects

Lululemon’s letter brief and the three figures identified in its sealing request.

What happened

Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa inc. concerns lululemon’s request to restrict public access to three figures in a letter brief about the meaning of “Surrounding Textile Structure.”

Lululemon said the figures contained information marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the protective order. It also said the court had previously sealed the same information and that the letter brief did not contain lululemon’s confidential information.

The court granted the request to file the three figures under seal and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00771
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Jan. 17, 2025

Request

Lululemon asked for permission to file under seal three figures in its letter brief concerning the construction, or interpretation, of “Surrounding Textile Structure.” The letter said the figures contained information designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the protective order. The letter also stated that the same information had previously been submitted in a sealed filing and that the court had previously granted a request to seal it.

Lululemon said the letter brief did not contain any of its own confidential information. The request relied on the court’s earlier ruling and cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.

Ruling

The court granted the request. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 264. The order did not otherwise decide the meaning of “Surrounding Textile Structure” or the parties’ underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.