Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-00771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nike v. Lululemon, Judge Subramanian denied Nike’s protective-order request concerning Andy Caine’s deposition about Adidas footwear.
Nike’s request to prevent the deposition of Andy Caine was denied, so the discovery dispute was resolved in favor of Lululemon’s stated request to depose him about Adidas footwear. The scheduled March 19, 2024 conference was canceled, and the motion was terminated.
What happened
Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. is a patent-infringement case involving Nike patents on technology for knitting footwear uppers. Lululemon sought to question Andy Caine, a Nike executive who previously designed footwear for Adidas.
Lululemon argued that Caine had personal and unique knowledge of Adidas footwear developed and sold before Nike’s earliest asserted patent filing. Nike asked the court to prevent the deposition, citing concerns about deposing senior executives who lack relevant personal knowledge or whose testimony would be redundant.
The court denied Nike’s request for a protective order, canceled the scheduled March 19, 2024 conference, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00771
- Subramanian
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Nike asserted three patents concerning technology for knitting footwear uppers. Lululemon raised invalidity defenses based on knitted footwear that Adidas developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s and sold in the United States before 2004. The opinion says some of those products were worn by athletes in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
Andy Caine worked for Adidas from 1998 to 2003 and was hired by Nike in 2003. At Nike, he later became a Footwear Design Director and then Vice President of Footwear Design. Lululemon stated that Caine designed one or more of the Adidas products at issue and had knowledge about the others. It sought his deposition based on his personal knowledge of the Adidas prior art and his experience with footwear design, development, and manufacturing.
Motion for a Protective Order
Nike moved for a protective order, which is a court order limiting or preventing discovery, to bar Caine’s deposition. Nike relied on cases explaining that courts may protect senior executives from depositions when they lack personal knowledge of relevant facts, lack unique relevant knowledge, or would provide testimony duplicative of lower-level witnesses.
Lululemon argued that those cases did not apply because Caine had unique knowledge of the Adidas prior art. Lululemon said it was unaware of another Nike employee who had designed footwear at Adidas during the relevant period and that no lower-level Nike employee could provide more information about that prior art. It also disputed Nike’s assertion that the deposition was sought for harassment.
Ruling
The court denied Nike’s request for a protective order “in light of lululemon’s stated reasons for deposing Mr. Caine.” The court also canceled the March 19, 2024 conference and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 121. The opinion does not provide a separate, detailed explanation beyond that ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.