Reebok launches a legal turf fight

Reebok International Ltd. of Canton sued rival Nike Inc. yesterday, claiming the world's biggest sneaker maker stole a Reebok design for a shoe that can be rolled up and stuffed in a suitcase or bag.

Reebok asked the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to force Nike to stop producing sneakers that Reebok claims use its so-called collapsible shoe technology. Reebok got the patent for the innovation in January . The suit alleges that 11 shoes in Nike's Free line of sneakers use the technology.

In a statement, Nike of Beaverton, Ore., said it is "evaluating the claims related to this very recently issued US patent and any potential limited application to the successful Nike Free product."

The suit is an example of Reebok's willingness to go to court -- even under new owner Adidas AG -- to protect its turf in the cutthroat footwear business. Since 1990, Reebok has filed approximately a dozen patent-infringement lawsuits against competitors and retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. , JC Penney Corp., and Payless ShoeSource Inc .

"We will always work hard to protect the technologies that we develop as a result of our hard work in the area of research design and development," said Reebok spokeswoman Denise Kaigler . The company's suit also seeks to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

This is the first time Reebok has alleged patent infringement against Nike. The two companies have competed for decades, a battle that heated up last year when Germany's Adidas bought Reebok, then the number three athletic apparel maker, to create the second largest athletic wear maker, behind Nike.

Intellectual property specialists said yesterday that a patent fight between two behemoths could easily cost millions and be damaging to the loser.

Reebok applied for a patent for its collapsible shoe technology in 2002. The patent describes the invention as a shoe made from a flexible sole and upper material that can "be rolled, folded, or collapsed on itself" in order to be easily stored or carried in luggage. The patent also suggests that Reebok wants to sell such shoes in vending machines at airports, train stations, or hotels. The US Patent and Trademark office granted the patent on Jan. 30.

Kaigler, the Reebok spokeswoman, said she could not disclose whether the company ever sold shoes that contained its collapsible shoe technology but noted that patent law does not require a product to be on the market in order for a patent to be enforced.

In the past, Reebok's Travel Trainers line used technology that was the basis for the collapsible shoe patent.

Kaigler also said Reebok plans to find out through the legal proceedings whether any other Nike shoes should be included in the patent action.

Reebok has had some success in patent-infringement suits. In 1989, Reebok accepted a $425,000 settlement from competitor L.A. Gear California Inc. In 1992 , Reebok settled a suit it had filed against Spalding Sport Worldwide and design firm Design Continuum , in which Reebok claimed the two companies copied technology behind its popular Pump sneakers. The terms of that settlement were not disclosed.

In its case against Nike, Reebok might be hedging its bets by filing in Texas, where Eastern District Court juries have been favorable toward patent holders, said Jason Kravitz , a patent litigator at law firm Nixon Peabody LLP in Boston.

An invention detailed in a patent application is usually published and accessible to the public within 18 months of the application being filed. Since it took nearly five years for Reebok's collapsible shoe patent to be issued, anyone could have studied its design.

Nike launched its Free line of running shoes in 2004 . The shoes have grooves on the bottom, a flexible toe, and pliable material on top. The shoe is designed to allow runners' feet to move as naturally as possible, as if they are running barefoot.

Reebok couldn't take legal action against Nike until it got patent approval, said Steven K. Martin , a partner at patent and trademark law firm Altman & Martin in Boston.

"There's really nothing they can do prior to the issuance of the patent," he said. "They can't get any damages from that, but they can for anything after the patent issues."

Keith Reed can be reached at reed@globe.com.