DCT

1:23-cv-16072

Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16072, N.D. Ill., 11/17/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell footwear that infringes a design patent covering the ornamental features of a footwear upper.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the highly competitive consumer footwear market, where distinctive and recognizable product design is a significant driver of brand value and sales.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint frames this action as part of a broader enforcement effort against numerous online sellers, allegedly operating in concert under fictitious aliases to conceal their identities and evade liability for selling infringing products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-11-08 U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Priority Date
2021-08-10 U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Issued
2023-11-17 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161, "Footwear Upper," issued August 10, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the fashion and footwear industries, creating a novel and non-obvious ornamental design for an article of manufacture allows a product to be distinguished from competitors (Compl. ¶¶6-7). The complaint asserts that UGG products are "enormously popular and even iconic" and that consumers associate their distinctive designs with quality (Compl. ¶¶6-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a footwear upper, not the functional aspects of the footwear (’161 Patent, Claim). The visual design is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict an ankle-height upper with a distinct rounded collar, specific seam placements, a rear pull-tab, and a particular overall shape and proportion ('161 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The broken lines in the figures, such as the sole of the footwear, represent unclaimed subject matter and are not part of the patented design ('161 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The commercial value of such a design lies in its ability to create a recognizable product appearance that consumers may associate with a specific brand, in this case UGG (Compl. ¶¶5-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶24; ’161 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article as a whole, depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures. Key visual elements include:
    • The overall profile and proportions of the ankle-high upper.
    • A raised, rounded collar feature at the top opening.
    • A vertical seam on the rear of the upper.
    • A pull-tab integrated with the rear vertical seam.
    • The specific curvature and lines of the upper's construction.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are footwear products ("Infringing Products") that allegedly embody the patented design (Compl. ¶3). These products are sold by the unidentified Defendants through e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are footwear boots that are visually similar or identical to the design protected by the ’161 Patent (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that Defendants operate their e-commerce stores in a manner intended to make them appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint characterizes the Defendants as part of a large-scale network of infringers who use common tactics and shared infrastructure to sell unauthorized goods (Compl. ¶¶17-18). A table included in the complaint displays multiple views of the patented design to illustrate the claimed ornamental features (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, which asks whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent, such that they would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" sold by Defendants are footwear that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the UGG Design" (’161 Patent) (Compl. ¶24). The core of the allegation is that the overall visual appearance of the accused footwear is substantially the same as the design depicted in the ’161 Patent’s figures.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be a factual one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' footwear substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art?
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over which visual features of the design are most significant to the overall appearance and whether any differences in the accused products are sufficient to avoid a finding of substantial similarity.
    • Procedural Questions: Given the defendants are identified as a collective of unknown entities, a primary issue will be establishing the identity of each defendant and the specific products sold by each, which is a prerequisite for a defendant-specific infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is focused on the overall visual impression of the claimed design as shown in the drawings, rather than on the definition of textual terms.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design ... as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of this "term" is defined by the patent's drawings and is the central issue of the case. The infringement analysis depends entirely on how broadly or narrowly the visual elements depicted in FIGS. 1-7 of the ’161 Patent are interpreted.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A fact-finder could determine that the claim covers any footwear upper with the same overall visual impression, focusing on the combination of the ankle-high profile, rounded collar, and rear pull-tab, and that minor variations in proportion or seam placement do not alter the substantially similar appearance (’161 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific, solid-line drawings themselves provide evidence for a narrower scope. A party could argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions, curvatures, and feature placements shown in the figures (’161 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The description also explicitly disclaims the portions of the footwear shown in broken lines, limiting the design's scope to only the "footwear upper" ('161 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" and "jointly and severally" offering for sale products that infringe the patented design (Compl. ¶20). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing, suggesting a theory of indirect infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶21). The complaint asserts this is supported by Defendants' alleged business model of intentionally copying a well-known design to trade on Plaintiff's reputation, and by their use of fictitious aliases and other tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶¶3, 15-16).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be one of visual scope: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused footwear sold by the various Defendants "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? This will require a detailed visual comparison against the patent figures.
  • A key procedural and evidentiary challenge will be managing a case against a large number of anonymous e-commerce entities. Plaintiff will need to establish the identity of the operators, connect them to specific infringing sales, and demonstrate that their joinder in a single action is appropriate.
  • A critical question for remedies will be one of proof of damages: given that design patent holders can seek the infringer's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a key issue will be whether Plaintiff can obtain the necessary financial records from Defendants who are alleged to use offshore accounts and tactics to obscure their sales data (Compl. ¶19).