Skechers Faces Latest Infringement Suit Over Hands-Free Sneaker Technology

Last week, Utah-based shoemaker HandsFree Licensing Labs (HFL) filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging claims of patent infringement against Skechers, the latest legal action against the California-based footwear company previously accused of copying innovations by several competitors. This latest suit alleges that Skechers’ Hands Free Slip-In technology, incorporated into more than one-third of the company’s total product lineup, has been misappropriated from HFL’s patented technology developed to improve footwear for the elderly and disabled.

One-Third of Skechers Products Listed Online Feature Infringing Hands-Free Tech

Days before the Kansas City Chiefs squeaked by the Philadelphia Eagles 38-35 in Super Bowl LVII, Skechers announced a massive marketing campaign introducing its Hands Free Slip-In feature and promoted by prominent celebrities like Snoop Dogg. Skechers CEO Robert Greenberg commented that the slip-in technology has been “integral to our global growth” during an October 2024 investor’s call, and HFL’s lawsuit indicates that 35% of the products listed on Skechers website includes the slip-in feature. This May, the Greenberg family’s stake in Skechers earned them $1.1 billion following the company’s $9.5-billion sale to Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital.

According to the complaint, despite reaping great value from hands-free slip-in shoewear, that entire sector was largely invented in 2017 when HFL’s shoe brand Kizik began selling its hands-free sneakers. Kizik’s shoes incorporated patented technology developed by inventor Michael Pratt, who spent years creating a shoe with a novel titanium arc that secures footwear against the heel as the owner steps into the shoe. Pratt developed this technology to serve people with disabilities, elderly individuals, pregnant women, children and anyone else having issues with motor skills that make it difficult to tie laces or put on sneakers.

HFL’s patents asserted in the case include:

• U.S. Patent No. 11633006, Rapid-Entry Footwear Having a Stabilizer and an Elastic Element
• U.S. Patent No. 11871811, same title as the ‘006 patent
• U.S. Patent No. 12121096, same title as the ‘006 patent
• U.S. Patent No. 12274325, same title as the ‘006 patent
• U.S. Patent No. D1037641, Footwear
• U.S. Patent No. D1038067, same title as the ‘641 design patent

Skechers’ products accused of infringing upon these patents-in-suit include a long list of sneakers featuring a heel pillow, a molded heel structure and elastic upper elements. The accused Hands Free Slip-Ins including this heel configuration range across several Skechers product lines, such as the Arch Fit, Max Cushioning, Ultra Flex, Glide-Step, GO WALK, GO RUN, Summits, D’Lites, Work, and Kids/Youth. Some sneaker models with elastic or stretch laces, as well as mesh synthetic upper elements, are also targeted by HFL’s infringement allegations.

Efficient Infringement Business Model at Center of Multiple Skechers Lawsuits

HFL’s lawsuit is just the latest in a series of legal actions against Skechers over allegedly copying competitor designs. Major shoemakers adidas and Nike have both accused Skechers of building its entire business model upon copying competitor designs without respect for intellectual property rights protecting those footwear innovations. Not only have both companies filed multiple lawsuits against Skechers, but a 2017 order from the District of Oregon recognized that orders to produce knockoff versions of popular adidas shoes likely came from CEO Greenberg himself.

The market success of Kizik hands-free sneakers, especially with major corporate partners, further underscores Skechers’ willfulness in infringing HFL’s patents. In November 2019, HFL announced that it had received a strategic investment from Nike in exchange for Nike’s access to HFL’s Foot Activated Shoe Technology solutions. Rather than investing or contacting HFL for a license, the patent owner’s complaint maintains that Skechers simply incorporated HFL’s patented technology in the form of Skechers’ Heel Pillow and other features that the company touts as exclusive features it developed.

The Eastern District of Texas is notorious for receiving a large percentage of patent infringement lawsuits filed in the United States. HFL’s lawsuit notes several contacts between Skechers and Eastern Texas arguably making venue proper in this case, including several Skechers stores located across the district, substantial promotional partnerships including the Houston Marathon, and continuous and systemic business activities as recognized by the Eastern Texas district court in at least two lawsuits previously filed against Skechers within the district.

HFL asks the Eastern Texas district court for a judgment that Skechers has infringed the patents-in-suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Along with injunctive relief, HFL seeks a damages award for infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, a finding that Skechers’ infringement has been willful, an exceptional case determination under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of attorney’s fees.