Golf Lawsuit Curry Inc: 2026 Update, Status and Payouts

Never Miss a Lawsuit Update

Mark Lawfold as a Preferred Source so you never miss a settlement deadline or new filing.

The golf lawsuit Curry Inc searches point to is a patent case. Athalonz sued Under Armour, and Stephen Curry isn’t a defendant.

No claim form exists. No consumer payout is on the table. This is a fight between two companies over shoe technology.

You’ll learn who sued whom and why Curry got pulled in. Then comes the 2026 status, plus a look at his new Li-Ning golf line. We also cover Spieth, the patent office ruling, and what happens next.

Here’s the hook. Under Armour filed five patent challenges against Athalonz on a single day in March 2024.

Related: Golf Lawsuit This Week: 2026 Settlement and Filing Update

What Is the Golf Lawsuit Curry Inc Searches Point To?

The lawsuit is Athalonz LLC v. Under Armour, a patent infringement case in federal court.

Athalonz sued Under Armour in April 2023 in federal court in Texas. It accuses the company of infringing five shoe patents.

The dispute centers on sole technology. That includes how soles compress and how their materials are arranged. Under Armour denies the claims and says the patents are invalid.

Curry enters the story through shoes that carry his name. Athalonz says he helped design soles it calls infringing. That link is real, but it’s indirect.

Judge Rodney Gilstrap oversees the case. Both sides asked for a jury. Most readers land here after seeing Curry’s name beside the word golf.

Patent cases move slowly. This one has run for more than three years. Delays come from patent office reviews and court stays.

Is Stephen Curry Being Sued Over Golf Shoes?

No, Stephen Curry is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

The court record lists two parties. Athalonz is the plaintiff, and Under Armour is the defendant. That’s the whole cast of litigants.

No company called Curry Inc appears in that party list. Curry Brand launched in November 2020 under Curry’s long-term partnership with Under Armour. It was a product line, not a defendant.

Think of suing a restaurant over a dish. You wouldn’t name the celebrity chef on the menu, but you might ask him questions. That’s what Athalonz tried, by subpoenaing Curry, Spieth and Harper.

Curry’s role stayed limited. Athalonz is pursuing its patent claim against Under Armour, not the athletes. No report in the coverage accuses Curry personally of anything.

Who Is Athalonz and What Does It Claim?

Athalonz LLC is a golf shoe company that owns the patents at the center of the case.

Testimony describes its EnVe golf shoe as a product built on its patents. Under Armour calls Athalonz a small operating company and a direct competitor.

Athalonz says Under Armour stole design features of high-performance shoes. The claim covers sole construction, not logos or looks. That’s a technical argument, and it lives in the fine print of patent claims.

Athalonz asserts five patents, and Under Armour challenged all five at the patent office. That’s an aggressive defense. It shows how seriously the company takes the case.

Key Takeaway: Athalonz is the plaintiff, Under Armour is the only defendant, and Curry is a named athlete rather than a party.

Is the Under Armour Golf Shoe Lawsuit a Class Action?

No, this lawsuit is not a class action.

Class actions bundle many people with the same complaint. This case has one plaintiff company and one defendant company.

There is no class of shoe buyers. There is no settlement fund, no claims website, and no filing deadline.

Patent suits work differently from consumer cases. The patent holder says someone used its invention without permission. Shoe buyers aren’t the injured party in that story.

Picture a bakery suing a rival over a recipe. The customers who bought the rival’s cake don’t get a check.

If a website shows a claim form tied to this case, treat it as a red flag. None appears in any report on the case.

How Much Money Can Consumers Get From This Lawsuit?

Consumers can get $0 from this lawsuit.

Any money would move between the companies. If Athalonz wins, Under Armour pays. If Under Armour wins, nobody pays.

Patent damages usually take two forms. One is a reasonable royalty on each sale. The other is profit the patent holder lost.

Reports haven’t revealed a damages figure. Sales data still matters to the math. A judge ordered Under Armour to share athlete sponsor deal information in April 2024, but limited how much.

Settlements in patent cases are often private. Even a settlement wouldn’t create a public payout for buyers.

Who Qualifies for Compensation in This Case?

Nobody outside the two companies qualifies for compensation in this case.

Buying a Curry shoe or an Under Armour golf shoe gives you no claim here. Wearing one doesn’t either.

The case asks one question. Did Under Armour use patented sole technology without permission? Buyers play no part in answering it.

A buyer would need a different legal theory. Examples include a product defect, false advertising or a pricing claim. None of those appear in this case.

Retail receipts and proof of purchase don’t matter here. There’s nothing to submit and no one to submit it to.

Key Takeaway: This is a company-versus-company patent case, so buyers have no claim to file and no money to collect.

What Did the Steph Curry Subpoena Ruling Say?

A federal judge in California said in February 2024 she would block Curry’s deposition.

Athalonz had subpoenaed Curry, Spieth and Harper to testify about allegedly infringing shoes. The California judge left room to allow a Curry subpoena later.

Under Armour filed actions in federal courts to fight the subpoenas. Curry isn’t a party, so courts guard his time closely.

The Harper ruling shows the reasoning. The judge found Athalonz could get the same information from Under Armour. That logic helps explain why Curry was shielded too.

A deposition is sworn questioning outside the courtroom. Athalonz wanted Curry’s answers on sole design. For now, it didn’t get them.

What Is Jordan Spieth’s Role in the Under Armour Lawsuit?

Jordan Spieth is a non-party golfer whom Athalonz links to accused Under Armour shoes.

Public statements describe Spieth as involved in designing Under Armour golf shoes. Athalonz argues that makes his knowledge relevant.

Spieth disagrees. He says he lacks any knowledge about sole design and calls the demand intrusive.

The Texas court sided with Athalonz on one key point. It denied Under Armour’s request to move the case, because Spieth lives in Dallas and could offer relevant testimony.

That testimony could touch obviousness and damages. Obviousness asks whether an invention was an easy next step.

• Athalonz: Spieth helped design accused golf shoes.
• Spieth: He knows nothing relevant about the soles.
• Texas court: His Dallas ties kept the case in Texas.

Which Under Armour Shoes Does Athalonz Accuse?

The accused products include golf, basketball and baseball shoes tied to athlete names.

Athalonz says its original complaint targeted Under Armour golf shoes. It later pursued shoes bearing the names of Curry, Spieth and Harper.

Public reports don’t name every accused model. The dispute centers on sole materials and layout, not on brand names.

Under Armour disputes all of it. It says the patents are invalid and that it didn’t infringe.

Key Takeaway: Athalonz targeted three athletes, but courts shielded Curry and Harper for now, and Under Armour remains the only defendant.

What Did the PTAB Decide About the Athalonz Patents?

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated claims across four Athalonz patents in September 2025. That ruling handed Under Armour a major win.

Under Armour started this fight in March 2024. It filed five review petitions on March 4, 2024, one per patent.

Inter partes review is a patent office process. It tests whether a patent should have been granted at all. Think of a building inspector rechecking a permit after the house is built.

Claims are the numbered sentences that define what a patent protects. Once a ruling becomes final, the owner can’t enforce an invalidated claim.

Reports on the ruling name four patents. The fifth petition’s outcome wasn’t covered in what I found.

What Is the Case Status in 2026?

The case remains stayed in 2026 while patent office review plays out.

The court’s order keeps the case paused until a decision on review of the patent proceedings arrives. A stay is a court-ordered pause. Nothing moves until it lifts.

The parties must file a joint status report within ten days of the review decision. That report will signal what happens next.

The public docket lists its last known filing as September 24, 2025. A quiet docket doesn’t mean a dead case.

Patent stays can last a long time. Reviews, appeals and rulings stack up. Patience is the only option.

When Will the Athalonz v. Under Armour Trial Happen?

No trial date has been reported, and the stay makes one unlikely soon.

The Eastern District of Texas has a reputation for quick patent trials. This case is the exception while paused. Both sides asked for a jury, so a trial is possible if it restarts.

Four realistic paths exist from here:

• Patents stay invalid: The case shrinks or ends.
• Review gets reversed: The case restarts and a trial gets scheduled.
• Settlement: The companies resolve it privately.
• Appeal: The Federal Circuit may review patent office decisions.

Each path depends on the patent office decisions. Courts rarely rush past them. Expect a slow finish.

Key Takeaway: The patent office ruling and the stay now drive the case, so a 2026 trial is hard to picture.

Does Curry’s Li-Ning Golf Line Change the Lawsuit?

No, Curry’s June 2026 Li-Ning deal doesn’t change the Athalonz case.

Curry left Under Armour in November 2025 after 13 years. On June 1, 2026, he announced a 10-year deal with Li-Ning that includes a golf line.

The lawsuit targets Under Armour products. No public filing I found accuses Li-Ning products. A new partner starts with a clean slate.

The Curry 13, released February 13, 2026, was the final Curry shoe under the Under Armour partnership. That closes one chapter and opens another.

Should You Still Buy Under Armour Golf Shoes?

Yes, this lawsuit gives you no reason to stop buying Under Armour golf shoes.

A patent claim is about who invented a feature. It isn’t about whether a shoe is safe. Nothing in the coverage points to a recall or a sales ban.

Prices and refunds aren’t part of the case. Buyers have no claim and no loss to recover.

Availability is a separate story. Under Armour cut its product count by 25% and booked $128 million in restructuring charges. If shelves look thinner, restructuring is the bigger reason.

• Safety: Not at issue.
• Price: Not at issue.
• Refunds: None available.
• Selection: Shaped by restructuring.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Stephen Curry being sued in the golf lawsuit?

No, Stephen Curry is not a defendant.

Athalonz sued Under Armour and sought Curry’s testimony as a non-party.

A California judge blocked his deposition in February 2024.

Can I join a class action over the Under Armour golf shoe lawsuit?

No class action exists for this case.

It is a patent dispute between two companies.

Buyers have no claim form to file.

Who is winning Athalonz v. Under Armour?

Under Armour holds the edge for now.

The patent board invalidated claims across four Athalonz patents in September 2025.

The court case stays paused during review.

Is the golf lawsuit still active in 2026?

Yes, but it is stayed.

The court paused it pending a review decision on the patent office rulings.

The docket’s last known filing is September 24, 2025.

Does the lawsuit affect Curry’s new golf line with Li-Ning?

No public filing links the suit to Li-Ning products.

The case targets Under Armour, and Curry left that company in November 2025.

His Li-Ning deal, announced June 1, 2026, includes a full golf line.

Closing

This case is about patents, not payouts. Curry is a named athlete, and Under Armour is the one defending.

Track updates by searching case number 2:23-cv-00193 on a federal docket service. Watch for the joint status report after the review decision.

Skip any site offering a claim form for this case. None exists.

Never Miss a Lawsuit Update

Mark Lawfold as a Preferred Source so you never miss a settlement deadline or new filing.