Feb 24 - Puma and Berkshire Hathaway's ( BRK/A )

Brooks Sports have agreed to settle litigation over

claims that Brooks' running shoes violated Puma's patent and

trademark rights, according to filings in Washington federal

court.

Puma and Brooks asked a federal judge in Seattle on Friday

to dismiss the cases with prejudice, which means they cannot be

refiled. A Puma spokesperson said on Monday that the dispute had

been resolved under confidential terms.

Attorneys and spokespeople for Brooks did not immediately

respond to a request for comment and more information on Monday.

Germany-based Puma sued Brooks in 2022, alleging a Brooks ad

campaign using "Nitro" to advertise its running shoes violated

Puma's rights in the name, which it uses with competing running

shoes. Puma also said in the lawsuit that Brooks' shoes

infringed a design patent covering the foam-molding technology

Puma uses in its Nitro shoes.

Brooks denied the allegations and said it used "Nitro"

solely to describe its shoes' nitrogen-infused midsoles.

Puma sued Brooks again in Seattle last June, alleging

Brooks' Hyperion running shoes infringed several other patents.

Brooks denied the allegations and called the lawsuit a "baseless

action" to "harass Brooks and seek leverage in the parties'

ongoing trademark dispute."

Brooks separately sued Puma in Virginia federal court last

September, seeking an order that its Glycerin running shoes did

not infringe Puma patents. Brooks told the court in a filing

last Wednesday that they had settled the case in principle.

The Washington cases are Puma SE v. Brooks Sports Inc, U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Washington, Nos.

2:23-cv-00116 and 2:24-cv-00940.

For Puma: Johanna Wilbert, Michael Piery, Matthew Holohan

and Kent Dallow of Quarles & Brady

For Brooks: Geoffrey Potter, Aron Fischer, Lachlan

Campbell-Verduyn and Jay Cho of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

Read more:

Puma accuses Brooks of infringing 'Nitro' running shoe

trademark

Brooks sues Puma in running-shoe patent dispute