This story appears in Sportico’s Morning Lead newsletter. Click below to sign up and get it delivered right to your box. Bryce Harper, the two-time National League MVP, won a constitutional victory last week when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted the two-time MVP’s request to overturn a lawsuit in a trademark infringement case against Under Armour. It is the most recent development in a lawsuit that has implicated famous athletes in professional footwear design disputes. According to Judge Dale Ho, Harper’s refusal to comply with a subpoena brought by Athalonz, a manufacturer of golf shoes, do get “unduly burdensome.” Athalonz demands that Harper give evidence and move over contacts relating to his support of Under Armour, which sells a line of baseball cleats, batting boots, and other materials. Athalonz claims that the concepts and shoe style versions of the Harper 5, Harper 6, and Harper 8 shoes violate two inventions. In Texas in March 2025, attorneys for Athalonz and Under Armour are scheduled to go on test. The density and shoe arrangement in some Under Armour shoes are in dispute. As Sportico discussed in February, Athalonz has also demanded that golfer Jordan Spieth–another Under Armour endorser–comply with a subpoena. The Jordan Spieth Collection is distributed to sport enthusiasts by Under Armour. In U.S. papers. S. Under Armour and Spieth were “publicly touting their significant role in developing the accused products, ” according to city judge Amos Mazzant III, Athalonz, as a justification for his testimony. Spieth insists his position is special, and not professional, and that Athalonz could get the same information straight from the accused, Under Armour. The original No. A top-ranked athlete also contends that his “extensive commitments as a skilled golfer ” may make it “burdensome” to sit in for a testimony. ” Mazzant has not yet ruled on the Spieth summons. With Harper, Athalonz amplifies marketing claims that show Harper being involved in the design process and offering suggestions. “Mr. Harper, ” Athalonz wrote in a court filing, “has personally used the accused products in an MLB environment and can thus provide unique testimony regarding the value of and benefits of Athalonz’s patented invention—testimony that no [ Under Armour ] witness can provide. Athalonz added that the lawsuit is not intended to denigrate a well-known athlete, but rather to obtain details from a witness who might be able to inquire about his involvement in the creation and production of his personal baseball cleats as well as their promotion, promotion, and sale. ” In his own court papers, Harper flatly rejected Athalonz’s description of him as knowledgeable about complex issues related to patents. His lawyers wrote Harper had “no involvement ” in “shape, construction or technical aspects of the heels of the accused Harper items, or the materials used. Harper was only permitted to provide feedback on the decorative features of the accused Harper products, such as his preference for particular color schemes and his wearing the footwear. Additionally, the attorneys argued that Harper has a “busy and demanding plan ” as an MLB player, and it would be unfair to force him to appear in court and testify in court about patent infringement issues of which he has no information. ” Ho concurred with Harper. He claimed that Athalonz must second attempt to obtain those documents from the accused before attempting to coerce a non-party like Harper. The prosecutor also emphasized that Harper provided a sworn statement from an Under Armour older style officer who claimed Harper lacked any important technical knowledge. “Mr. Harper, ” the designer said, “does not design the shape of the sole, or any other component [of the shoes ] ” and “does not choose the materials used in the sole, or any other component. Harper claimed that he was not involved in designing any aspect of the trademark dispute in a subsequent charter to back up his claim. Under Armour signed Harper, 31, in 2011, a year after the Washington Nationals selected him first total in the 2010 MLB review. In what is rumored to be the biggest football player support deal ever, Under Armour signed Harper to a 10-year improvement in 2016. Over the years, Under Armour has touted the role of Harper in boots bearing his name. The Spieth and Harper warrants serve as a reminder to players and their endorsed businesses of the dual nature of marketing materials that promote players ‘ involvement in the production of clothing, shoes, and products. On the one hand, those assertions help drive sales because they make the products appear to accurately reflect the athletes who are recommending them. On the other hand, they could be used to pressure those athletes to give evidence and testify in intellectual property disputes.