Yahoo Finance Nike sues Lululemon over Mirror Home Gym
By Jonathan Stempel and Blake Brittain
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Nike Inc on Wednesday filed a lawsuit accusing Lululemon Athletica Inc of patent infringement for making and selling the Mirror Home Gym and related mobile apps without authorization.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Nike accused its smaller rival of infringing six patents, including through technology that enables users to target specific levels of exertion, compete with other users, and record their own performance.
Nike, based in Beaverton, Oregon, is seeking triple damages for Lululemon's alleged willful infringement, and a variety of other remedies.
Mirror gyms start at $1,195 https://www.mirror.co/shop/packages?utm_source=lululemon_site&utm_medium=lululemon&utm_campaign=story_page_bundles_shop_mirror, according to Lululemon's website.
Lululemon said in a statement: "The patents in question are overly broad and invalid. We are confident in our position and look forward to defending it in court."
In a Dec. 10, 2021 letter to Nike, a lawyer for Lululemon said the Vancouver, British Columbia-based company "respects intellectual property" even as it rejected Nike's claims.
Lululemon bought Mirror, an at-home fitness company with an interactive workout platform featuring live and on-demand classes, for about $453 million in July 2020.
Athletic apparel makers have benefited during the pandemic as people forced to work or spend more time home ditched dressier clothing for hoodies, leggings and other casual wear.
But Lululemon warned https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/lululemon-raises-annual-revenue-forecast-sustained-athleisure-boom-2021-12-09 last month that the spread of the Omicron coronavirus variant could reduce sales of its apparel because of supply chain issues and potential store closures.
It also halved its fiscal year sales forecast for Mirror to a range of $125 million to $130 million.
In late afternoon trading in New York, shares of Lululemon were down 4.5% at $363.62, while Nike was down 2.1% at $162.91.
The case is Nike Inc v Lululemon Athletica Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-00082.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Blake Brittain in Washington; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Lisa Shumaker)
