This is a material de-risking event for Under Armour. The two surviving tortious interference claims (Counts V and VI) involve only three business partners (American Textile, Milliken, TB12) and appear limited in scope. Monitor for any settlement or jury trial on those claims, but the core business risk from this lawsuit is effectively eliminated. No appeal timeline stated — assume MET may appeal the summary judgment and Daubert rulings to the Third Circuit.
Price Chart
Executive Summary
Under Armour secured a major victory in its long-running litigation with Multiple Energy Technologies LLC. A Daubert order excluded both of MET's key expert witnesses, and the summary judgment order dismissed MET's Lanham Act false advertising claim, Sherman Act monopolization claim, trade secret claim, and several other state-law claims. Only two tortious interference claims survive for trial. This eliminates material litigation risk for Under Armour, as the dismissed claims sought damages and injunctive relief that could have disrupted its bioceramic apparel business.
Court Ruling Details
Key Facts
- Court granted summary judgment for Under Armour on MET's Lanham Act and Sherman Act claims.
- Court excluded both of MET's expert reports (Dr. Maronick's false advertising survey and Dr. Hekman's antitrust analysis).
- MET alleged lost royalties of approximately $4.6 million.
- Only two state-law tortious interference claims (Counts V and VI) survive for trial.
- The Lanham Act claim failed because MET lacked statutory standing and could not prove materiality.
- The Sherman Act claim failed because MET could not show antitrust injury, antitrust standing, or a properly defined relevant market.
- The trade secret and breach of NDA claims failed for lack of evidence.
Financial Impact
Unquantified — MET sought lost royalties of ~$4.6M on the Lanham Act claim. The antitrust claims had no specific damages figure stated in the rulings. The primary value is removal of litigation overhang and potential injunctive risk to Under Armour's Celliant-powered apparel lines.
Risk Factors
- Remaining tortious interference claims (Counts V and VI) could still go to trial, though their financial exposure appears limited based on the nature of the claims.
- MET may appeal the summary judgment and Daubert rulings to the Third Circuit, but the rulings were thorough and well-grounded in precedent.
- If the Court later certifies an interlocutory appeal on the Lanham Act or Sherman Act dismissals, it could extend uncertainty.
- The opinion states MET has sued Hologenix (Celliant maker) and its CEO in separate cases — collateral litigation risk remains.
Market Snapshot
Investment Themes
Documents Analyzed
This report is based on 2 court opinions from CourtListener.
| Document | Accession Number |
|---|---|
| COURT-RULING Data (Synthetic) | court-2cb95459ef-UAA |
| COURT-RULING Data (Synthetic) | court-c08142650f-UAA |
Filters
| Type | Now | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 11, 2026 21d ago | Court Ruling | $5.11 $4.88 | ▲ +4.50% | ▲ +4.28% | $4.71 (+7.83%) |
Aug 7, 2026 8w ago | 8-K | $6.11 $5.36 | ▲ +12.28% | ▲ +12.67% | $4.71 (+22.91%) |
Jul 15, 2026 11w ago | DEFA14A | $7.25 $6.74 | ▼ −7.03% | ▼ −5.36% | $4.71 (−35.03%) |
Jul 13, 2026 11w ago | Court Ruling | $6.75 $7.43 | ▲ +10.07% | ▲ +10.86% | $4.71 (−30.22%) |
Jul 7, 2026 12w ago | Court Ruling | $6.74 $6.61 | ▼ −1.93% | ▼ −2.48% | $4.71 (−30.12%) |
US Market Status
Subscribe to SecBot
Get Real-Time Court Ruling Intelligence
Market-moving court rulings analyzed within minutes. Patent verdicts, antitrust decisions, class certifications, and more — parsed and scored by AI.
Try SecBot Free Coming soon: SecBot Pro with alerts, watchlists, and API access