直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Recreation

About

Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Recreation is part of our work in Consumer Goods and Services, and Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint, when protecting your innovations

The sports, fitness, and outdoor recreation industries are rapidly evolving. While traditional sporting goods and fitness equipment products remain popular—and companies continually strive to make improvements in those areas—the space has expanded to include fitness concerns of the burgeoning number of people looking to enhance their health with performance and active lifestyle products. From “apps” on a phone for health-conscious consumers, to data-measuring wearables for competing athletes, to esports, a wide variety of performance technology, gaming leagues, and lifestyle products have entered the mainstream. To keep pace with customer demand, companies are tasked with continually inventing, manufacturing, and branding new and innovative products. But competition for market share is fierce, which makes protecting a product’s brand value and underlying intellectual property critical to short- and long-term success. Finnegan understands the business imperative for having a competitive edge in a crowded and ever-changing playing field.

Understanding the law, science, and technology

Finnegan’s lawyers and professionals have vast experience in all areas of intellectual property law; more than 40 are former patent examiners. Our first-hand experience includes working with clients developing health and fitness tracking systems, body-worn smart medical devices, artificial sports playing fields, diagnostic mobile applications (apps), sports apparel, business methods directed to health and fitness, and mechanical technologies related to sports, fitness, and outdoor recreation equipment.

From procuring patents for new inventions to developing sophisticated litigation strategies, we help with:

  • Protecting against infringement through litigation or other dispute resolution options
  • Conducting post-grant review proceedings, including inter partes review
  • Writing opinions and providing ongoing counseling for new and evolving products
  • Conducting invention capture sessions that focus on the client’s business and legal needs
  • Developing and executing prosecution strategies to create strong intellectual property rights
  • Analyzing competitors’ intellectual property to avoid infringement and identify gaps and weaknesses
  • Providing patent prosecution and counseling
  • Advising on trade secret policies and protections
  • Providing trademark, copyright, and advertising services

Everyone in this industry

Experience

Patent protection for innovative golfing technology

Finnegan assists Acushnet Company, a leading manufacturer of golf equipment, clothing, and accessories, with the development and protection of its patent portfolio through strategic patent drafting and prosecution across a variety of technologies.

Strategic patent support led to startup acquisition

Advised a cycling-focused startup on the preparation and prosecution of a foundational patent application, which played a key role in its acquisition by a global leader in GPS-enabled technology across fitness, outdoor, marine, automotive, and aviation markets.

Under Armour, Inc. v. Armorina, Inc., 1:19-cv-02417, D. Md. 

After a four-day trial, secured a jury ruling for Under Armour that Armorina’s use of the ARMORINA mark constitutes trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution.

1:19-cv-02417, D. Md., Judge Boardman

Maglula, Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
Represented Maglula Ltd. in a one-of-a-kind district court litigation including patent, trademark, and copyright claims over Maglula’s assertions that Amazon sold counterfeit consumer products. After the Court issued an order (i) denying Amazon’s motion for summary judgment; (ii) finding “Amazon's attempts to avoid liability … will have minimal impact before a jury”; (iii) reflecting the Court’s belief that "not [] even the most persuasive presentation of Amazon’s evidence would make one iota of difference to a jury”; and (iv) requiring the parties to engage in mediation, the parties entered into an agreement and the case was dismissed.

1:19-cv-01570, E.D. Va., Judge O'Grady

Under Armour v. Uncle Martian (China)

Obtained preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages in high-profile infringement in China. The Supreme People’s Court, the highest court in China, affirmed the decision, securing a complete win for Under Armour.

Fujian Higher People's Court

Various global and U.S. license negotiations involving standard, semiconductor, and telecommunication patents

Represented licensees and licensors in patent and trade secret license negotiations involving standard-essential patents (SEPs), semiconductor or integrated circuit (IC) patents, semiconductor process patents, factory management and automation patents, fitness equipment patents, telecommunication patents, computer networking patents, and other technologies in dozens of license negotiations; represented global companies in various IP license and cross license negotiations, presented and countered infringement assertions, formulated license terms and business arrangements, and prepared license agreements involving SEP patents, non-SEP patents, FRAND issues, MFN issues, audit provisions, arbitration mechanisms, etc. 

More

Insights

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 2026

Articles

The Breakaway Problem: What USA Masters Weightlifting Got Wrong and What Every Splinter Group Should Know

May 29, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Split over “Plainly Dissimilar” Design, Affirms Summary Judgement of Non-infringement

February 24, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Cancellation of Registration Based on Priority of Common Law Rights

January 13, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Not an Abstract Way to Pump Iron: Federal Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Claims for Automatic Adjustable Dumbbells as Patent Ineligible

October 22, 2025

Articles

Southeast Litigation Update: September 2024

November 22, 2024

More

News

Award/Ranking

World Trademark Review Recognizes Three Finnegan Partners on its 2026 Global Leaders List

June 24, 2026

Commentary

Will the Chicago Cubs Win Their Game Over 'The Rooftop Phenomenon'?

June 8, 2026

Commentary

Permanent Injunction Granted to USA Weightlifting Inc., Enjoining Use of Protected Marks

April 24, 2026

Commentary

Grambling, After 30 Years, Separates from Pack to Trademark ‘G’

April 15, 2026

Commentary

Design Patent Dissent Highlights Frustration Over Subjectivity

February 11, 2026

Media Mention

TTAB: KINGS ARMOR Mark for Various Apparel Products Succumbs to Cancellation Challenge

April 3, 2025

More

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP