DCT

1:24-cv-00008

Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00008, N.D. Ill., 01/02/2024
  • 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’ online stores sell footwear that infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a footwear upper.
  • Technical Context: The case involves ornamental design rights for footwear, a key differentiator in the highly competitive global apparel and e-commerce markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a collective action against a group of unnamed e-commerce operators, a common strategy in anti-counterfeiting litigation to address allegedly coordinated networks of online sellers. Plaintiff states that products embodying the patented design are marked in compliance with patent notice statutes.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-11-08 U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Application Filing Date
2021-08-10 U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Issue Date
2024-01-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161 - "FOOTWEAR UPPER"

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that in the crowded footwear market, creating a visually distinctive and recognizable product appearance is critical for brand identity and consumer recognition (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "footwear upper" (’161 Patent, CLAIM). The design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of the overall shape of an ankle-height boot, featuring a distinct raised collar, a vertical seam on the front, and a rear vertical seam incorporating a pull tab (’161 Patent, Figs. 1-6). Crucially, the patent’s description explicitly states that the sole of the footwear, depicted in broken lines, forms no part of the claimed design, limiting protection to the upper's appearance (’161 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this specific design is a key visual element of its UGG Products and has become "enormously popular and even iconic" and "broadly recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (’161 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-7 of the patent, limited to the elements shown in solid lines.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are footwear products, referred to as "Infringing Products," that are allegedly sold by the Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various aliases on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are unauthorized items that copy Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 24). These products are allegedly marketed and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois, through what the complaint characterizes as a network of interrelated online storefronts designed to appear as legitimate retailers (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 14). The complaint provides images of the patented design to represent the visual appearance that is allegedly infringed. The complaint includes several figures from the patent to illustrate the "UGG Design" at issue, including a perspective view of the footwear upper. (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint does not contain a side-by-side visual comparison or a traditional claim chart, as is common in design patent cases. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the Defendants’ products infringe the ’161 Patent.

The complaint alleges that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the UGG Design" (Compl. ¶24). The infringement claim rests on the assertion that the visual appearance of the accused footwear is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent. The determination of infringement will depend on a visual comparison between the accused products and the solid-line drawings in the ’161 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the proper application of the claim's scope. The ’161 Patent explicitly disclaims the outsole. A question for the court will be whether the infringement analysis properly disregards any and all differences between the outsole of the accused product and the unclaimed outsole shown in the patent's figures, focusing solely on the visual similarity of the footwear uppers.
    • Technical Questions: The key factual question is whether the accused products are, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the claimed design. This will require evidence, presumably in the form of the actual accused products or high-quality photographs, for a direct visual comparison against the patent’s figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the figures largely define the claim scope. However, the interpretation of the design's subject matter is critical.

  • The Term: "footwear upper"
  • Context and Importance: This term, read in conjunction with the patent's descriptive statement, is central to defining the boundaries of the claimed design. Its proper interpretation limits the infringement analysis to the upper portion of the shoe, excluding the sole. Practitioners may focus on this term because it preempts any non-infringement defense based on differences in the unclaimed outsole, such as a different tread pattern, color, or material.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides clear evidence to limit the claim's scope. The title is "FOOTWEAR UPPER" (’161 Patent, (54)). More pointedly, the specification includes a disclaimer: "The broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design" (’161 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language provides a strong basis for construing the claim as covering only the ornamental features of the upper shown in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶20) and that they share tactics to market infringing goods and evade detection (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement, suggesting a theory of liability that extends across the network of sellers (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly pleaded (Compl. ¶21). The allegations are based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products (Compl. ¶20) and engage in deceptive conduct, such as using false identities and multiple seller aliases, to conceal their operation and "avoid being shut down" (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16).

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

  • A central issue will be one of visual identity: will a factual comparison demonstrate that the accused products sold by the various Defendants are "substantially the same" as the claimed ornamental design for a "footwear upper" in the ’161 Patent, from the perspective of an ordinary observer?
  • A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of collective liability: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to establish that the numerous, anonymous defendant storefronts are an interrelated network "working in active concert," a finding that would be critical to justifying a broad injunction and supporting the claims for willful infringement against the group as a whole?