Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00121, N.D. Ill., 01/06/2026
• 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 numerous e-commerce operators are making, selling, and importing footwear that infringes its design patent covering the ornamental appearance of an "UGG Design" boot.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer footwear industry, where the ornamental design and brand recognition of a product are significant drivers of market value.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The case is structured as an action against a large number of unidentified defendants, a common procedural posture for combating online counterfeit sales.

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
2026-01-06	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D927,161, titled “FOOTWEAR UPPER,” issued on August 10, 2021 (’161 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint asserts that Deckers' UGG brand products are "enormously popular and even iconic" and that their distinctive designs are "broadly recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶6-7). The patent serves to protect this specific ornamental design from imitation.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims "[t]he ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (’161 Patent, Claim). The design is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's figures, which illustrate the specific shape and configuration of a boot upper from multiple viewpoints (’161 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Key visual features include the ankle-height profile, the shape of the shaft opening, the vertical seam details, and the appearance of the rear pull tab. The patent's description explicitly notes that the sole, shown in broken lines, does not form part of the claimed design (’161 Patent, Description). The complaint includes a table with five figures illustrating the patented UGG Design from different angles (Compl. ¶7, p. 4).
• Technical Importance: In the fashion and apparel industry, a unique and recognizable product design can be a primary source of commercial value and brand identity (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
• The claim of the ’161 Patent covers the ornamental design for a footwear upper. Its scope is defined by the visual elements depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-7, which include:
  • The overall shape and profile of the boot upper.
  • The configuration of the collar and shaft opening.
  • The placement and appearance of seams.
  • The design of the rear pull tab.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are footwear products ("Infringing Products") allegedly sold by the Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms such as PayPal, Amazon, Walmart, and Temu (Compl. ¶11). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers to "unknowing consumers" and sell products that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶3, ¶14). The complaint further alleges that Defendants operate under multiple "Seller Aliases" to conceal their identities and evade enforcement actions (Compl. ¶10, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendants’ products infringe the ’161 Patent by embodying the claimed ornamental design (Compl. ¶24). In design patent cases, infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The analysis centers on whether the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the infringing article, believing it to be the patented one. The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element comparison but asserts that the "Infringing Product" infringes the patented "UGG Design" (Compl. ¶3, ¶24). The primary evidence of the accused product's appearance is referenced as "footwear shown in Exhibit 1" (Compl. ¶3).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design in the ’161 Patent. The analysis will focus on the similarities in the ornamental features of the footwear uppers, while disregarding any similarities in the unclaimed sole.
  • Technical Questions: The factual question for the court will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the drawings in the ’161 Patent. The outcome may depend on whether any differences between the products are minor and do not detract from the overall similarity of the appearance, or if they are significant enough to create a different visual impression for an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction is uncommon in design patent litigation, as the drawings themselves typically define the scope of the claim. However, the interpretation of what the drawings cover is central to the dispute.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper"
• Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is defined by what is shown in solid lines versus what is disclaimed in broken lines. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it determines the boundaries of the intellectual property right. Infringement requires appropriation of the novel ornamental features of the upper, not the functional or disclaimed portions of the shoe, such as the sole.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall "ornamental design," suggesting that the visual impression of the design as a whole, rather than a collection of discrete elements, should be the focus of the infringement analysis.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly limits the claim, stating that "[t]he 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 clear basis to argue that the claim is strictly limited to the specific visual features of the upper shown in solid lines and does not extend to the overall appearance of a complete boot including the sole.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of products infringing "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶24) and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringement (Compl. ¶ Prayer 1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement or the elements for contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The stated basis is that Defendants are "working to knowingly and willfully import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶20). The allegations focus on the intentional nature of the commercial activity and tactics used to conceal identities, rather than on specific knowledge of the ’161 Patent prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶15-16).

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

• Evidentiary Similarity: The central substantive issue will be one of visual comparison: will the evidence show that the accused products sold by the Defendants are so visually similar to the design claimed in the ’161 Patent that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The outcome will depend entirely on a comparison of the accused products with the patent figures.
• Procedural Viability: A threshold question is one of jurisdiction and joinder: can the Plaintiff successfully establish personal jurisdiction over the numerous, anonymous, and allegedly foreign-based Defendants, and can their conduct be properly joined into a single case as arising from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences"? (Compl. ¶20).
• Practical Enforcement: Assuming infringement is found, a key practical challenge will be one of remedy and enforcement: can the Plaintiff obtain and effectively enforce an injunction and recover damages against a diffuse network of online sellers who allegedly use tactics to conceal their identities, assets, and operations? (Compl. ¶10, ¶19).